Hi guys, I've been playing lately with JSR 354 javax.money api ( http://javamoney.java.net) and I was wondering if there's any plans for hibernate to support this. Thanks. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. --- Public PGP Key at: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 C311 0611 _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev

> yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but > that would not be "proper". That would actually be my preference; If the javax.money types are present, enable the required Types etc. otherwise not. It's a pattern we e.g. use in Validator, too, where we provide additional constraint validator types based on what's available in the runtime environment. Why do you consider it as not proper? 2015-12-22 17:03 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > I had planned to support this JSR when I thought it would be part of the > JDK. But as it is, supporting this properly would mean a whole new > module/artifact just to add these few types + the dependency (similar to > hibernate-java8). I am not a fan of the fact that it would require a > separate dependency; yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but > that would not be "proper". > > I am interested in what others think. > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:37 PM Petar Tahchiev <paranoiabla(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Hi guys, >> >> I've been playing lately with JSR 354 javax.money api ( >> http://javamoney.java.net) and I was wondering if there's any plans for >> hibernate to support this. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> Regards, Petar! >> Karlovo, Bulgaria. >> --- >> Public PGP Key at: >> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 >> Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 C311 0611 >> _______________________________________________ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev

On 22 December 2015 at 17:34, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: >> yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but >> that would not be "proper". > > That would actually be my preference; If the javax.money types are > present, enable the required Types etc. otherwise not. It's a pattern > we e.g. use in Validator, too, where we provide additional constraint > validator types based on what's available in the runtime environment. +1 > Why do you consider it as not proper? Same question for me. It might not be perfectly well defined in terms of Maven dependencies, still I think the practical benefit for users far outweights the cons.. if that's what you're referring to. Sanne > > > 2015-12-22 17:03 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> I had planned to support this JSR when I thought it would be part of the >> JDK. But as it is, supporting this properly would mean a whole new >> module/artifact just to add these few types + the dependency (similar to >> hibernate-java8). I am not a fan of the fact that it would require a >> separate dependency; yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but >> that would not be "proper". >> >> I am interested in what others think. >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:37 PM Petar Tahchiev <paranoiabla(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Hi guys, >>> >>> I've been playing lately with JSR 354 javax.money api ( >>> http://javamoney.java.net) and I was wondering if there's any plans for >>> hibernate to support this. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, Petar! >>> Karlovo, Bulgaria. >>> --- >>> Public PGP Key at: >>> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 >>> Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 C311 0611 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev

Well the Bitronix use-case is actually a perfect illustration of why optional/provided dependencies stink. Nothing in the dependency graph indicates what you are expected to do here. Bitronix users would have to look at the documentation to understand this; and dependency graph/analysis tools would be completely at a loss. And in Bitronix the "decision" is all internal to Bitronix. Here at least the argument is a little more justified because we are really talking about looking to see if another set of classes (library) are present from the application's classloader (since the application would need to bind to Moneta, etc statically). 'optional' is flat out wrong; that is well documented elsewhere. I can be persuaded to use 'provided' for something like this, as I already stated. On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.vlad(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > That's how Bitronix Transaction Manager managed optional dependencies as > well. > In its case cglib and javassist were optional dependencies and at runtime > the framework decided whether to load one provider or the other. > > Vlad > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: > > > On 22 December 2015 at 17:34, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: > > >> yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but > > >> that would not be "proper". > > > > > > That would actually be my preference; If the javax.money types are > > > present, enable the required Types etc. otherwise not. It's a pattern > > > we e.g. use in Validator, too, where we provide additional constraint > > > validator types based on what's available in the runtime environment. > > > > +1 > > > > > Why do you consider it as not proper? > > > > Same question for me. It might not be perfectly well defined in terms > > of Maven dependencies, still I think the practical benefit for users > > far outweights the cons.. if that's what you're referring to. > > > > Sanne > > > > > > > > > > > 2015-12-22 17:03 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > > >> I had planned to support this JSR when I thought it would be part of > the > > >> JDK. But as it is, supporting this properly would mean a whole new > > >> module/artifact just to add these few types + the dependency > (similar to > > >> hibernate-java8). I am not a fan of the fact that it would require a > > >> separate dependency; yes we could use an optional/provided > dependency, > > but > > >> that would not be "proper". > > >> > > >> I am interested in what others think. > > >> > > >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:37 PM Petar Tahchiev <paranoiabla(a)gmail.com&gt; > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi guys, > > >>> > > >>> I've been playing lately with JSR 354 javax.money api ( > > >>> http://javamoney.java.net) and I was wondering if there's any plans > > for > > >>> hibernate to support this. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Regards, Petar! > > >>> Karlovo, Bulgaria. > > >>> --- > > >>> Public PGP Key at: > > >>> > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 > > >>> Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 C311 0611 > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > >>> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >

To me, "optional" seems like the right thing for this case. "Provided" (at least in the Maven world, I don't know whether Gradle has different semantics) suggests that this stuff is really to be provided by the runtime; I interpret this as a mandatory requirement towards the environment (i.e. a Java EE container *has* to provide the javax.* packages). Optional instead indicates that this stuff may be present at runtime or not. If it is present, some optional functionality will be available to the user, otherwise not. For the case of Money the user is depending on these types anyways - and thus required to expose them on the runtime class path - if he is wishing to work with these types in his own code (or not otherwise). No need to analyse the dependency graph or whatsoever. As said we use that style in Hibernate Validator for optional constraint validators, and it works well, I can't remember of any related issue or complaint. I suppose it'd help if you could point to that resource describing potential issues with optional. 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > Well the Bitronix use-case is actually a perfect illustration of why > optional/provided dependencies stink. Nothing in the dependency graph > indicates what you are expected to do here. Bitronix users would have to > look at the documentation to understand this; and dependency graph/analysis > tools would be completely at a loss. And in Bitronix the "decision" is all > internal to Bitronix. Here at least the argument is a little more > justified because we are really talking about looking to see if another set > of classes (library) are present from the application's classloader (since > the application would need to bind to Moneta, etc statically). > > 'optional' is flat out wrong; that is well documented elsewhere. I can be > persuaded to use 'provided' for something like this, as I already stated. > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.vlad(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> That's how Bitronix Transaction Manager managed optional dependencies as >> well. >> In its case cglib and javassist were optional dependencies and at runtime >> the framework decided whether to load one provider or the other. >> >> Vlad >> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; >> wrote: >> >> > On 22 December 2015 at 17:34, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; >> wrote: >> > >> yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but >> > >> that would not be "proper". >> > > >> > > That would actually be my preference; If the javax.money types are >> > > present, enable the required Types etc. otherwise not. It's a pattern >> > > we e.g. use in Validator, too, where we provide additional constraint >> > > validator types based on what's available in the runtime environment. >> > >> > +1 >> > >> > > Why do you consider it as not proper? >> > >> > Same question for me. It might not be perfectly well defined in terms >> > of Maven dependencies, still I think the practical benefit for users >> > far outweights the cons.. if that's what you're referring to. >> > >> > Sanne >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2015-12-22 17:03 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> > >> I had planned to support this JSR when I thought it would be part of >> the >> > >> JDK. But as it is, supporting this properly would mean a whole new >> > >> module/artifact just to add these few types + the dependency (similar >> to >> > >> hibernate-java8). I am not a fan of the fact that it would require a >> > >> separate dependency; yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, >> > but >> > >> that would not be "proper". >> > >> >> > >> I am interested in what others think. >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:37 PM Petar Tahchiev < paranoiabla(a)gmail.com&gt; >> > wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Hi guys, >> > >>> >> > >>> I've been playing lately with JSR 354 javax.money api ( >> > >>> http://javamoney.java.net) and I was wondering if there's any plans >> > for >> > >>> hibernate to support this. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks. >> > >>> >> > >>> -- >> > >>> Regards, Petar! >> > >>> Karlovo, Bulgaria. >> > >>> --- >> > >>> Public PGP Key at: >> > >>> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 >> > >>> Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 C311 0611 >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >> > >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > >>> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> > >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > hibernate-dev mailing list >> > > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > _______________________________________________ >> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev

From the user's perspective the best solution is actually the least

It's software, so everything is *possible*. Question is whether we deem it acceptable for the user having to depend on another submodule or not. If you think that's ok, then go for it ;) 2015-12-22 23:09 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > You mean in addition to Maven's own documentation? Quote[1]: > > "Optional dependencies are used when it's not really possible (for whatever > reason) to split a project up into sub-modules. The idea is that some of the > dependencies are only used for certain features in the project, and will not > be needed if that feature isn't used. Ideally, such a feature would be split > into a sub-module that depended on the core functionality project...this new > subproject would have only non-optional dependencies, since you'd need them > all if you decided to use the subproject's functionality." > > Beyond Maven's own documentation, simply google... > > [1] > https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and... > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:50 PM Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: >> >> To me, "optional" seems like the right thing for this case. "Provided" >> (at least in the Maven world, I don't know whether Gradle has >> different semantics) suggests that this stuff is really to be provided >> by the runtime; I interpret this as a mandatory requirement towards >> the environment (i.e. a Java EE container *has* to provide the javax.* >> packages). >> >> Optional instead indicates that this stuff may be present at runtime >> or not. If it is present, some optional functionality will be >> available to the user, otherwise not. For the case of Money the user >> is depending on these types anyways - and thus required to expose them >> on the runtime class path - if he is wishing to work with these types >> in his own code (or not otherwise). No need to analyse the dependency >> graph or whatsoever. >> >> As said we use that style in Hibernate Validator for optional >> constraint validators, and it works well, I can't remember of any >> related issue or complaint. I suppose it'd help if you could point to >> that resource describing potential issues with optional. >> >> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> > Well the Bitronix use-case is actually a perfect illustration of why >> > optional/provided dependencies stink. Nothing in the dependency graph >> > indicates what you are expected to do here. Bitronix users would have >> > to >> > look at the documentation to understand this; and dependency >> > graph/analysis >> > tools would be completely at a loss. And in Bitronix the "decision" is >> > all >> > internal to Bitronix. Here at least the argument is a little more >> > justified because we are really talking about looking to see if another >> > set >> > of classes (library) are present from the application's classloader >> > (since >> > the application would need to bind to Moneta, etc statically). >> > >> > 'optional' is flat out wrong; that is well documented elsewhere. I can >> > be >> > persuaded to use 'provided' for something like this, as I already >> > stated. >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM Vlad Mihalcea < mihalcea.vlad(a)gmail.com&gt; >> > wrote: >> > >> >> That's how Bitronix Transaction Manager managed optional dependencies >> >> as >> >> well. >> >> In its case cglib and javassist were optional dependencies and at >> >> runtime >> >> the framework decided whether to load one provider or the other. >> >> >> >> Vlad >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero < sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On 22 December 2015 at 17:34, Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org > >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but >> >> > >> that would not be "proper". >> >> > > >> >> > > That would actually be my preference; If the javax.money types are >> >> > > present, enable the required Types etc. otherwise not. It's a >> >> > > pattern >> >> > > we e.g. use in Validator, too, where we provide additional >> >> > > constraint >> >> > > validator types based on what's available in the runtime >> >> > > environment. >> >> > >> >> > +1 >> >> > >> >> > > Why do you consider it as not proper? >> >> > >> >> > Same question for me. It might not be perfectly well defined in terms >> >> > of Maven dependencies, still I think the practical benefit for users >> >> > far outweights the cons.. if that's what you're referring to. >> >> > >> >> > Sanne >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > 2015-12-22 17:03 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: >> >> > >> I had planned to support this JSR when I thought it would be part >> >> > >> of >> >> the >> >> > >> JDK. But as it is, supporting this properly would mean a whole >> >> > >> new >> >> > >> module/artifact just to add these few types + the dependency >> >> > >> (similar >> >> to >> >> > >> hibernate-java8). I am not a fan of the fact that it would >> >> > >> require a >> >> > >> separate dependency; yes we could use an optional/provided >> >> > >> dependency, >> >> > but >> >> > >> that would not be "proper". >> >> > >> >> >> > >> I am interested in what others think. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:37 PM Petar Tahchiev >> >> > >> <paranoiabla(a)gmail.com&gt; >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> > >>> Hi guys, >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> I've been playing lately with JSR 354 javax.money api ( >> >> > >>> http://javamoney.java.net) and I was wondering if there's any >> >> > >>> plans >> >> > for >> >> > >>> hibernate to support this. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> Thanks. >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> -- >> >> > >>> Regards, Petar! >> >> > >>> Karlovo, Bulgaria. >> >> > >>> --- >> >> > >>> Public PGP Key at: >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 >> >> > >>> Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 C311 >> >> > >>> 0611 >> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >> >> > >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >> > >>> >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> >> > >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> >> > >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ >> >> > > hibernate-dev mailing list >> >> > > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> >> > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev

Any updates on this? What has been decided? Can we see some hibernate support for this JSR? 2015-12-26 19:13 GMT+02:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > Correct. And things are "possible in any number of ways". Some are just > more right than others. The fun is the fact that the question of which > which is more right can be different depending on your perspective and > that > is clearly the case here. > > >From the user's perspective the best solution is actually the least > attractive from the Hibernate development side of things... specifically > the best option for the user is for Hibernate to specify a compile-only > dependency (optional, provided, etc is irrelevant) and for Hibernate to > internally isolate itself from cases where javax.money is not available on > the classpath (reflection, etc). Ultimately I think this is the direction > to go for this particular integration. > > On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 2:23 AM Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; > wrote: > > > It's software, so everything is *possible*. Question is whether we > > deem it acceptable for the user having to depend on another submodule > > or not. If you think that's ok, then go for it ;) > > > > > > 2015-12-22 23:09 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > > > You mean in addition to Maven's own documentation? Quote[1]: > > > > > > "Optional dependencies are used when it's not really possible (for > > whatever > > > reason) to split a project up into sub-modules. The idea is that some > of > > the > > > dependencies are only used for certain features in the project, and > will > > not > > > be needed if that feature isn't used. Ideally, such a feature would be > > split > > > into a sub-module that depended on the core functionality > project...this > > new > > > subproject would have only non-optional dependencies, since you'd need > > them > > > all if you decided to use the subproject's functionality." > > > > > > Beyond Maven's own documentation, simply google... > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-optional-and... > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 3:50 PM Gunnar Morling <gunnar(a)hibernate.org&gt; > > wrote: > > >> > > >> To me, "optional" seems like the right thing for this case. > "Provided" > > >> (at least in the Maven world, I don't know whether Gradle has > > >> different semantics) suggests that this stuff is really to be > provided > > >> by the runtime; I interpret this as a mandatory requirement towards > > >> the environment (i.e. a Java EE container *has* to provide the > javax.* > > >> packages). > > >> > > >> Optional instead indicates that this stuff may be present at runtime > > >> or not. If it is present, some optional functionality will be > > >> available to the user, otherwise not. For the case of Money the user > > >> is depending on these types anyways - and thus required to expose > them > > >> on the runtime class path - if he is wishing to work with these > types > > >> in his own code (or not otherwise). No need to analyse the dependency > > >> graph or whatsoever. > > >> > > >> As said we use that style in Hibernate Validator for optional > > >> constraint validators, and it works well, I can't remember of any > > >> related issue or complaint. I suppose it'd help if you could point to > > >> that resource describing potential issues with optional. > > >> > > >> 2015-12-22 20:31 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > > >> > Well the Bitronix use-case is actually a perfect illustration of > why > > >> > optional/provided dependencies stink. Nothing in the dependency > graph > > >> > indicates what you are expected to do here. Bitronix users would > have > > >> > to > > >> > look at the documentation to understand this; and dependency > > >> > graph/analysis > > >> > tools would be completely at a loss. And in Bitronix the > "decision" > > is > > >> > all > > >> > internal to Bitronix. Here at least the argument is a little more > > >> > justified because we are really talking about looking to see if > > another > > >> > set > > >> > of classes (library) are present from the application's classloader > > >> > (since > > >> > the application would need to bind to Moneta, etc statically). > > >> > > > >> > 'optional' is flat out wrong; that is well documented elsewhere. I > > can > > >> > be > > >> > persuaded to use 'provided' for something like this, as I already > > >> > stated. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:26 PM Vlad Mihalcea < > > mihalcea.vlad(a)gmail.com&gt; > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> That's how Bitronix Transaction Manager managed optional > dependencies > > >> >> as > > >> >> well. > > >> >> In its case cglib and javassist were optional dependencies and at > > >> >> runtime > > >> >> the framework decided whether to load one provider or the other. > > >> >> > > >> >> Vlad > > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Sanne Grinovero < > > sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > On 22 December 2015 at 17:34, Gunnar Morling < > gunnar(a)hibernate.org > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > >> yes we could use an optional/provided dependency, but > > >> >> > >> that would not be "proper". > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > That would actually be my preference; If the javax.money types > > are > > >> >> > > present, enable the required Types etc. otherwise not. It's a > > >> >> > > pattern > > >> >> > > we e.g. use in Validator, too, where we provide additional > > >> >> > > constraint > > >> >> > > validator types based on what's available in the runtime > > >> >> > > environment. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > +1 > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Why do you consider it as not proper? > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Same question for me. It might not be perfectly well defined in > > terms > > >> >> > of Maven dependencies, still I think the practical benefit for > > users > > >> >> > far outweights the cons.. if that's what you're referring to. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Sanne > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > 2015-12-22 17:03 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole < > steve(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > > >> >> > >> I had planned to support this JSR when I thought it would be > > part > > >> >> > >> of > > >> >> the > > >> >> > >> JDK. But as it is, supporting this properly would mean a > whole > > >> >> > >> new > > >> >> > >> module/artifact just to add these few types + the dependency > > >> >> > >> (similar > > >> >> to > > >> >> > >> hibernate-java8). I am not a fan of the fact that it would > > >> >> > >> require a > > >> >> > >> separate dependency; yes we could use an optional/provided > > >> >> > >> dependency, > > >> >> > but > > >> >> > >> that would not be "proper". > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> I am interested in what others think. > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015, 1:37 PM Petar Tahchiev > > >> >> > >> <paranoiabla(a)gmail.com&gt; > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >>> Hi guys, > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> I've been playing lately with JSR 354 javax.money api ( > > >> >> > >>> http://javamoney.java.net) and I was wondering if there's > any > > >> >> > >>> plans > > >> >> > for > > >> >> > >>> hibernate to support this. > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> Thanks. > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> -- > > >> >> > >>> Regards, Petar! > > >> >> > >>> Karlovo, Bulgaria. > > >> >> > >>> --- > > >> >> > >>> Public PGP Key at: > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 > > >> >> > >>> Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 > C311 > > >> >> > >>> 0611 > > >> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >> >> > >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> >> > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> > >> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >> >> > >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> >> > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> >> > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > >> >> > > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> >> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > >> >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> >> > hibernate-dev mailing list > > >> >> > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > >> >> > > > >> >> _______________________________________________ > > >> >> hibernate-dev mailing list > > >> >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > >> >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > >> > hibernate-dev mailing list > > >> > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. --- Public PGP Key at: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x19658550C3110611 Key Fingerprint: A369 A7EE 61BC 93A3 CDFF 55A5 1965 8550 C311 0611