[hibernate-dev] ORM build - IDE imports

[Steve Ebersole]

>
>
> Personally, I am not a big fan of changing build structure for the purpose
> of an
> IDE. generated-src belong imo into target.
>
> That said, I know the troubles of having to manually adjust the Idea
> configuration
> after importing. If it bothers you so much or if you had several reports
> of people
> having problems setting up the project in the IDE, I's say go for it.
>

Yes, this is completely a pragmatic consideration.  I set the build up with
generated-src under target because that is what I believe is proper in the
idyllic sense.  But at some point I'd like to have an import that
JustWorks(tm).


> > To be honest I think I'd alter jpa-metamodel-gen to not be AP-based as
> the
> > best-case scenario.
>
> Not sure what you mean? Are you referring to the actual annotation
> processor module
> or do you mean that you want to statically check in the generated meta
> model classes
> needed for our tests in the hibernate-core/hibernate-entitymanager module?
> I assume
> the latter. Again, not a big fan.
>

No, I actually mean the former.  Probably as an alternative to the AP-based
generation, I think a non-AP solution would be good.  After having talked
to David a few times about this, I believe annotation processing is not the
proper way to be generating these classes.  My new belief is that
annotation processors that generate code that is then needed to compile is
bad mojo.



>
> > It seems to me the only real option currently is to expect a full compile
> > prior to import.
>
> Right. Something I would recommend anyways.
>

Dunno here.  Often my initial touch point with a project is to check out
the code and import it into the IDE.  And I think that I am not unusual in
that sense, so I think there is a ton of value in that working smoothly.


> Speaking of the hibernate-testing circularity, I do still want to get rid
> > of that.  Currently I have been waiting on Gradle adding support for
> > publishing multiple artifacts from a project (module).
>
> That would be nice. Is there an issue for that? Did they agree on
> implementing
> it?
>

They said it was something they wanted to do.  I'll follow up to see if it
was ever done.