On 3 April 2014 13:24, Hardy Ferentschik <hardy(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
I think we dropped the ball on this one. I basically had a look at Guillaume’s pull
His analysis was correct and his proposed patch brings back the old pre 4.4 behaviour
with minimal changes.
Ok that sounds good, I couldn't look at the PR yet.. should I not trust you ? :)
There is still the question of the indented use cases of @ContainedIn. As discussed in
afaik the indent was as a sole counterpart to @IndexedEmbedded. The implementation
as a side effect) made it also work when @IndexedEmbedded was not used. This was changed
the metamodel refactoring where contained in was indeed treated as counterpart of indexed
I think we should go ahead and apply Guillaume’s pull request for 4.4 and 4.5, basically
old 4.x behaviour, side effect or not.
The next question is then what to do in Search 5. I think we can just carry forward the
Yes let's keep them in sync for now
I don’t think that @ContainedIn needs another attribute or that we
should introduce a whole new annotation.
@ContainedIn seems quite natural provided we documented it intend and behaviour.
Basically all what @ContainedIn
is saying, is that here we have a reference to another entity which needs reindexing as
well when the current
entity gets reindexed. Whether the inclusions happens via @IndexEmbedded or via a custom
bridge is irrelevant.
I agree with you, but in insight if this new "meaning" would have been
explicit on this annotation from the beginning of time, maybe it would
have had a different name?
I don't think the name is appropriate for this more extended meaning;
probably not a big problem but we can decide on that after it's fixed.
P.S. Sanne, are you planning 4.4 and 4.5 releases as well? Just asking due to the recent
back ports. If so, we should
include this patch as well.
Some of the backports I did because I indeed want to maintain these
older branches, although to keep them stable I'd not be too eager on
We don't have dates defined, but we can certainly release these when
there are enough good reasons to: for example if Guillaume needs it.
On 28 Jan 2014, at 14:32, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again,
> I posted a pull request for the 4.5 branch:
> I included a rather large test case I have extracted from our app.
> It's simplified but I think you should get the idea by looking at it.
> All tests passes.
> FWIW, I find the new way to do it more consistent with the names of
> the methods as updateContainedInMaxDepths now does exactly what its
> name says.
> It would be nice if it could also be backported to 4.4.x.
> Glad to discuss further enhancements if needed but I think the old
> behavior should be brought back before considering any further
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Guillaume Smet
> <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Sanne,
>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org>
>>> However - I might not have fully grasped this yet - but I'm thinking
>>> that this is a feature request and not a bugfix that should be hastily
>>> applied on 4.4.
>> It's not a feature request. 4.4 changed this behavior. It was working
>> well with 4.3 (and every other versions before that).
>>> Guillaume, I suspect you might be a happier user if you would keep
>>> using a more bleeding edge version, so to catch any such thing earlier
>>> rather than the day before you go in production. I can only promise
>>> you that the migration to 5.0 will be a nightmare if you don't follow
>>> along in small iterations :-(
>> I don't think we can be more bleeding edge than us. We upgrade our
>> core framework to new versions as soon as they are released (we coded
for this purpose). That's why we
>> spend a considerable amount of time doing QA on the components we use
>> - you see a part of this work on ORM + Search but we also do it for
>> other components. You might have noticed that we are often the first
>> company out there to catch regressions.
>> When we have the ability to dedicate cycles to it, we also test CR.
>> But... we develop a lot of applications for a lot of customers and
>> they have different lifecycles: we can upgrade some easily and for
>> others we have to wait for the right opportunity to do it.
>> All in all, we have the following policy:
>> - all the applications in development: they use the latest versions of
>> each components, except if we catch a regression when upgrading. If so
>> we try to help fix it for the next version and we upgrade ASAP;
>> - the applications in production are updated regularly for minor
>> changes; If the changes are big, we wait for our customers to ask
>> changes on the app and we do it then.
>> The fact is that we caught this one while upgrading an app which was
>> using 4.3.0.Final (which is not that old) but I think we have other
>> applications already upgraded to 4.4.2 which have that bug, it's just
>> that we haven't caught it when we upgraded.
>> FWIW, we couldn't upgrade to 4.4.x before 4.4.2.Final because of a few
>> regressions we reported and helped getting fixed (I have at least
>> these ones in mind: HSEARCH-1442 and HSEARCH-1462 but IIRC we had
>> (Sorry for the noise but I thought it was a good opportunity to
>> explain how we work, considering we're involved in this community for
>> quite a long time now)
> hibernate-dev mailing list