Re: [hibernate-dev] JPA Compliance

Hi Steve, I think that for 5.2 was ok to have the isJpaBootstrap method to avoid breaking compatibility for the native bootstrap. For 6.0, maybe it's easier if we just align to the JPA spec where it makes sense, and only provide a separation where the JPA way is questionable. I noticed that the isJpaBootstrap method is deprecated. Was it intended to be removed in 6.0? Vlad On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > Part of 5.2 was merging the JPA contracts into the corresponding Hibernate > ones. So, e.g., we no longer "wrap" a SessionFactory in an impl of > EntityManagerFactory - instead, SessionFactory now extends > EntityManagerFactory. > > This caused a few problems that we handled as they came up. In working on > the JPA 2.2 compatibility testing, I see that there are a few more still > that we need to resolve. Mostly they relate to JPA expecting exceptions > in > certain cases where Hibernate has historically been lenient. E.g., JPA > says that calling EntityManagerFactory#close on an EMF that is already > closed should result in an exception. Historically, calling > SessionFactory#close on a SF that is already closed is simply ignored. > Philosophical debates aside[1], we need to decide how we want to handle > this situation such that we can throw the JPA-expected exceptions when > needed. Do we simply change SF#close to match the JPA expectation? Or do > we somehow > make SF#close aware of JPA versus "native" use? This latter option was > the > intent of `SessionFactoryOptions#isJpaBootstrap` and we can certainly > continue to use that as the basis of the solution here for other cases. > > This `#isJpaBootstrap` flag is controlled by the JPA bootstrap code. So > if > the EMF is created in either of the 2 JPA-defined bootstrap mechanisms, > that flag is set to true. It's an ok solution, but it does have some > limitations - mainly, there was previously a distinction between SF#close > being called versus EMF#close being called (they were different classes, > so > they could react differently). Therefore, regardless of bootstrap > mechanism, if the user unwrapped the EMF to a SF, they would always get > the > legacy SF behavior. > > So long story short, so we want to consider an alternative approach to > deciding what to do in "some"[2] of these cases? Again, we clearly need > these to throw the spec-mandated exceptions in certain "strict compliance" > situations. The question really is how to do that. Should we: > > 1. just completely change the behavior to align with the spec? > 2. change the behavior to match the spec *conditionally*, where that > condition could be: > 1. `#isJpaBootstrap` > 2. some setting > 3. some extension contract > 4. something else? > > Thoughts? > > > [1] It's not relevant e.g. that I think JPA is wrong here. We need to > comply with the spec, at least in certain cases ;) > > [2] I say "some" here, because I think the spec is correct in some cases - > for example, I think its clearly correct that a closed EMF throws an > exception when `#createEntityManager` is called. Personally I think its > questionable whether closing an already closed EMF should be an exception. > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >