[hibernate-dev] Building a SessionFactory

[Steve Ebersole]

NamingStrategy is not a service.  It is solely a function of building 
the metadata.

Currently, again, I have this set up via ctor param passing:

new MetadataSources( reg, new MyNamingStrategy() )

Really its not logically part of the source, its needed during the 
transition from source->metadata, so an alternative I have been 
contemplating is:

new MetadataSources( reg ).buildMetadata( new MyNamingStrategy() )

I am open to other suggestions.  I really am trying to keep in mind the 
scope in which stuff is needed/useful/valid.


On 04/21/2011 03:11 AM, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
>
> On 21 avr. 2011, at 05:43, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>
>> I think this new API for creating a SessionFactory is starting to firm
>> up, so I wanted to put out another call for feedback before we get too
>> close to Alpha3.  So at a high level there are 2 pieces of information
>> needed to build the SessionFactory: the ServiceRegistry and the Metadata.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> The ServiceRegistry is built through a ServiceRegistryBuilder (this is a
>> slight recent change)
>>
>> Map config = ...;
>> ServiceRegistry serviceRegistry = new ServiceRegistryBuilder( config )
>>          ...
>>          .buildServiceRegistry();
>>
>> The "..." allows you to add service instances and service initiators.
>> Currently any (map of) configuration values is passed in the
>> constructor.  I can be convinced to allow adding/setting of config
>> values as well, if everyone has a preference for that approach:
>>
>> Map config = ...;
>> ServiceRegistry serviceRegistry = new ServiceRegistryBuilder()
>>          .setConfigurationData( config )
>>          .setOption( Environment.SHOW_SQL,
>> true )
>>          ...
>>          .buildServiceRegistry();
>>
>> Not sure the best method names there, to be honest which is why I opted
>> for passing them to ctor.
>
> Is that a Map<Object,Object>  or something a bit more refined?
>
> Regardless of the map being passed to the ctor, I'd think you need to ability to set additional options (like you setOptions)
>
> Alternative names:
> option: setting
>
> Not really related but, now that Configuration is gone, we lose some of the type safety (like cfg.setNamingStrategy(new MyNamingStrategy() ), or am I forgetting something in how the service registry works?
>
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Metadata is built through a MetadataSources which represents the sources
>> of metadata information.
>>
>> MetadataSources metadataSources = new MetadataSources( serviceRegistry )
>>          .addResource( "some.hbm.xml" )
>>          .addAnnotatedClass( SomeEntity.class );
>> Metadata metadata = metadataSources.buildMetadata();
>>
>>
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> The Metadata is then used to obtain a SessionFactory.
>>
>> SessionFactory sf = metadata.buildSessionFactory();
>>
>>
>> Metadata represents the "configuration time" mapping information.  As of
>> now we will allow users to manipulate and otherwise access this
>> information, hence the seeming "intermediate step".  These all work with
>> chaining:
>>
>> SessionFactory sf = new MetadataSources( serviceRegistry )
>>          .addResource( "some.hbm.xml" )
>>          .addAnnotatedClass( SomeEntity.class )
>>          .buildMetadata()
>>          .buildSessionFactory();
>>
>
> I guess you could have a buildMetadataSources() hosted on ServiceRegistry if you want people to use chaining methods all the way.

-- 
Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>
http://hibernate.org