Re: [hibernate-dev] SchemaManagementTool changes for 5.1 (was Re: 5.1 tentative release date)

For anyone familiar using SchemaExport from the command line... Am I interpreting this correctly when I see that `--create` means "just create" and `--drop` means "just drop"? From what I can tell, passing both seems to (looking at the code) cause just drop to happen. Anyone else find that extremely counter-intuitive? Any objection to instead exposing an `--action` option that can be one of "create", "drop", "create-and-drop", and "none"? And where "create-and-drop" is the default? On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:50 AM Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > The API does need to change. So we can leave the classes, but every usage > of them would need to be adjusted. Well every usage other than CLI, which > you mention, which is a decent point. So I'll leave the classes in place, > but change the contracts. > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:58 AM Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: > >> When you say dropping, what would be the alternative for CLI users? It >> seems like a strong change to do in a minor revision. >> >> What are the required changes you need to do here? My hope would have >> been that the API of these tools would not have to change. >> >> 2016-02-02 22:10 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> > Part of the work here is going to require significant changes to >> > org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaExport, >> > org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaUpdate and >> > org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaValidator. Significant as in current >> > usages would not work at all. So does it make sense to do those >> changes, or >> > to simply drop those classes? >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:15 PM Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt; >> wrote: >> >> >> >> I am debating with myself about reusing >> >> `javax.persistence.schema-generation.database.action` and >> >> `javax.persistence.schema-generation.scripts.action` in terms of this >> new >> >> unified support. The debate point being the fact that we'd have to >> have >> >> those accept an extended range of values which potentially hurts users >> in >> >> terms of JPA provider portability. For example, if they have: >> >> >> >> javax.persistence.schema-generation.database.action=validate >> >> >> >> Hibernate would understand that, but other providers likely would not. >> >> This is beyond the concept of "strict compliance" I started in SQM in >> my >> >> opinion. Here we are moving toward a unification, meaning we expect >> people >> >> to use this. >> >> >> >> So do we reuse the JPA names? >> >> >> >> On a related note.. in regards to the fact that JPA splits action >> between >> >> script and database target whereas hbm2ddl defines just a singular >> action >> >> value... does anyone know of a real case where someone defines >> different >> >> actions between script and database? I mean aside from one being >> NONE. I >> >> mean cases where they say we should do "create" for scripts but send >> >> "drop-and-create" to the database? That just seems odd to me. I >> think we >> >> have to account for the split since we have to account for JPA, and >> that >> >> model fits both. I was just curious >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:01 PM Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org > >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM Gunnar Morling < gunnar(a)hibernate.org >> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> 2016-01-29 17:18 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> >>>> > I also plan on adding an @Incubating annotation for just such >> things >> >>>> > :) >> >>>> >> >>>> Yes, please. We have an annotation @Experimental in OGM which we use >> >>>> for tagging APIs under development. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> See https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-10487. I also >> started a >> >>> separate discussion about this on the dev list. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> BTW, as an extension to changing SchemaManagementTool another thing >> I'd >> >>> like to add is some hook account for Envers use cases. Specifically >> the >> >>> idea there is to be able to do a few things: >> >>> 1) perform a selective create/drop. selective in terms of just >> certain >> >>> objects. This may be achievable through the new filter concept, >> although >> >>> we'd at least need a way to identify Envers tables from non-Envers >> tables. >> >>> Think of starting to use Hibernate+Envers on a schema that already >> exists. >> >>> 2) perform "actions". This is maybe beyond "schema tooling"; perhaps >> it >> >>> is more of a SessionFactory boot concept. But one thing Envers >> misses today >> >>> that would be good to add is the ability to "prime" the audit tables. >> >>> Meaning, for audited entities that do not have entries in their audit >> table, >> >>> create one. This for sure goes beyond simple SQL statements though. >> > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev