Didn't we discuss this at our last meeting? The general opinion - and final verdict - was that doing like you're asking now again would be way too much work and not generally worth it, not least not in the best interest of all our users. Technically it's certainly possible, but a lot of work going at cost of more useful progress, not least possibly causing confusion to users in various ways. Our proposal is unchanged (from the meeting): we'll have - experimentally - two versions in WildFly. In a first stage this would be version 5.1 and 5.3, so that people needing backwards compatibility with 5.1 can use 5.1 (can't have better compatibility than that!), while people wanting to use a later version can opt in for that. In a second stage, possibly onboarding some lessons, version 5.3 will be gradually replaced with 6.0. MAYBE 6.0 will be API compatible with 5.3, but definitely not with 5.1. I'm not sure if we can have this in WildFly.next, but the sooner the better. As soon as we have a stable release of Hibernate ORM 5.3 we'll start looking into details of such a double integration. Thanks, Sanne On 31 January 2018 at 06:43, Scott Marlow <smarlow(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > WildFly would like to have a version of 5.3+, that is compatible with ORM > 5.1, with regard to the org.hibernate.session changes (including mapping of > exceptions thrown, so that the same exceptions are thrown). > > Is it even possible to have an extra org.hibernate.Session interface + impl > (bridge) that matches the same session included in 5.1? The impl would > delegate to the real underlying org.hibernate.Session impl classes and also > wrap thrown exceptions, so that Hibernate 5.1 native ORM apps, continue to > work without code changes > > Or something like that. > > I could see how some users wouldn't want to use the compatibility layer to > avoid extra overhead, so in WildFly, we would have to make that possible > also. > > What do you think? > > We would need something similar in ORM 6.0+ that is also compatible with > 5.1, if this is possible. > > Scott > _______________________________________________ > 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 01/31/2018 10:49 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > Not to mention, I'm really not even sure what this request "means". As > we all understand 5.1 -> 5.2 unified SessionFactory/EntityManagerFactory > and Session/EntityManager, and that caused us to have to make changes to > certain method signatures - most notably `Session#getFlushMode` was one > of the problems. Session defined that returning a FlushMode; however > JPA also defined this same method, although poorly named IMO since it > instead returns JPA's FlushModeType (so why the method is not called > `#getFlushModeType` is beyond me. Anyway the point is that there is no > way to rectify these - there is no way that we can define a contract > that simultaneously conforms to both. > > As Sanne said, and as we all agreed during f2f, the best approach is to > have both versions available for use. Which Hibernate ORM release would be best for the second version that we include? ORM 5.3 or 6.0? Agreed that we will still include ORM 5.1, in WildFly. For the second ORM version that we include (whatever the version is), we have an additional requirement now. Future releases of WildFly need to be (JPA/native application) compatible with the Hibernate ORM versions that we include. We will be releasing WildFly more frequently, and want users to be able to able to keep up with our pace, as we release more often. Scott

On 02/08/2018 01:50 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > > What is meant by "(JPA/native application) compatible with the Hibernate > ORM versions that we include"? It means that for a while, we can only upgrade WildFly to newer Hibernate ORM versions that are compatible with one of the two Hibernate versions that we include with WildFly 12+. > > Both 5.3 and 6.0 are JPA 2.2, but 5.1 is JPA 2.1. Does that mean they > violate that requirement? I think the 5.3 versus 6.0 question, is more will applications written against the (application level) Hibernate 5.3 ORM classes, work correctly against 6.0. For determining which classes exactly, are application level classes, the Hibernate team should decide that. If the design for Hibernate ORM code changes, misses an application compatibility issue that we miss, that cannot be avoided. However, when the WildFly team looks at the latest/greatest version of Hibernate ORM to include, we will face pressure against bringing in any newer ORM version that requires application coding/configuration changes. > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow(a)redhat.com > <mailto:smarlow@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > On 01/31/2018 10:49 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: > > Not to mention, I'm really not even sure what this request > "means". As > > we all understand 5.1 -> 5.2 unified > SessionFactory/EntityManagerFactory > > and Session/EntityManager, and that caused us to have to make > changes to > > certain method signatures - most notably `Session#getFlushMode` > was one > > of the problems. Session defined that returning a FlushMode; > however > > JPA also defined this same method, although poorly named IMO since > it > > instead returns JPA's FlushModeType (so why the method is not > called > > `#getFlushModeType` is beyond me. Anyway the point is that there > is no > > way to rectify these - there is no way that we can define a > contract > > that simultaneously conforms to both. > > > > As Sanne said, and as we all agreed during f2f, the best approach > is to > > have both versions available for use. > > Which Hibernate ORM release would be best for the second version that > we > include? ORM 5.3 or 6.0? > > Agreed that we will still include ORM 5.1, in WildFly. For the second > ORM version that we include (whatever the version is), we have an > additional requirement now. Future releases of WildFly need to be > (JPA/native application) compatible with the Hibernate ORM versions > that > we include. > > We will be releasing WildFly more frequently, and want users to be > able > to able to keep up with our pace, as we release more often. > > Scott >

Hi Sanne, Good question about what is public API exactly. In WF modules, we have a way to mark the entire module as private. That doesn't help here, and that would only be a "how" not answering "what extensions". Having said that, it would be interesting to know the "how" as well. Perhaps documentation could state what APIs in Hibernate 5.3 that could be expected to *not* be the same in 6.0+. This wouldn't include new method signatures added but instead only existing method signatures removed. As well as, existing methods that are going to be repurposed in some way. I am not sure if this is enough but we could explore this idea if it would give us enough flexibility to move from 5.3 to 6.0+, later.

Scott On Feb 8, 2018 5:09 PM, "Sanne Grinovero" <sanne(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: Hi Scott, remember ORM 6.0 doesn't exist yet. Technically 5.3 doesn't exist yet either, but it's close. I'd start working to get 5.3 included so that we can address all integration issues, and additional unknowns caused by having multiple versions. If when we're all done fixing such problems 6.0 will be out, we'll re-evaluate the situation. In the meantime we'll check if 6.0 is going to be strickly compatible with 5.3: hard to answer on that in a definitive way when neither is ready. Unless Steve knows of some *public API* which definitely needs to break between 5.3 to 6.0? AFAIR last time we had such a conversation there was no clear agreement on what extensions should be considered public API *in the scope of WildFly's requirements*. Scott, do you have an update on that, or maybe refresh our memories? Thanks, Sanne On 8 February 2018 at 19:54, Scott Marlow <smarlow(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On 02/08/2018 01:50 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote: >> >> What is meant by "(JPA/native application) compatible with the Hibernate >> ORM versions that we include"? > > > It means that for a while, we can only upgrade WildFly to newer Hibernate > ORM versions that are compatible with one of the two Hibernate versions > that > we include with WildFly 12+. > >> >> Both 5.3 and 6.0 are JPA 2.2, but 5.1 is JPA 2.1. Does that mean they >> violate that requirement? > > > I think the 5.3 versus 6.0 question, is more will applications written > against the (application level) Hibernate 5.3 ORM classes, work correctly > against 6.0. For determining which classes exactly, are application level > classes, the Hibernate team should decide that. > > If the design for Hibernate ORM code changes, misses an application > compatibility issue that we miss, that cannot be avoided. However, when > the > WildFly team looks at the latest/greatest version of Hibernate ORM to > include, we will face pressure against bringing in any newer ORM version > that requires application coding/configuration changes. > > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:smarlow@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 01/31/2018 10:49 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote: >> > Not to mention, I'm really not even sure what this request >> "means". As >> > we all understand 5.1 -> 5.2 unified >> SessionFactory/EntityManagerFactory >> > and Session/EntityManager, and that caused us to have to make >> changes to >> > certain method signatures - most notably `Session#getFlushMode` >> was one >> > of the problems. Session defined that returning a FlushMode; >> however >> > JPA also defined this same method, although poorly named IMO since >> it >> > instead returns JPA's FlushModeType (so why the method is not >> called >> > `#getFlushModeType` is beyond me. Anyway the point is that there >> is no >> > way to rectify these - there is no way that we can define a >> contract >> > that simultaneously conforms to both. >> > >> > As Sanne said, and as we all agreed during f2f, the best approach >> is to >> > have both versions available for use. >> >> Which Hibernate ORM release would be best for the second version that >> we >> include? ORM 5.3 or 6.0? >> >> Agreed that we will still include ORM 5.1, in WildFly. For the >> second >> ORM version that we include (whatever the version is), we have an >> additional requirement now. Future releases of WildFly need to be >> (JPA/native application) compatible with the Hibernate ORM versions >> that >> we include. >> >> We will be releasing WildFly more frequently, and want users to be >> able >> to able to keep up with our pace, as we release more often. >> >> Scott >> >