[hibernate-dev] Which versions of the application server should the Hibernate OGM modules support

[Sanne Grinovero]

Hello all,
I actually have multiple questions on the subject.

# Module name

The Maven artifact id of the modules we're producing for WildFly 8 is
aptly named "org.hibernate.ogm:hibernate-ogm-modules-wildfly8".

I still think that's a good choice, as deploying modules is an
operation which is strictly coupled to the application server version.
I'm merly reminding this point as it suggests we *could* if - we want
to - easily produce modules for multiple application server versions.

# EAP versions

We're also producing modules for JBoss EAP6, but AFAIR these need some
love and I'm not sure if it's worth the effort - it might not need to
much work and I'm happy to look at it if you want to, but in case we
fix it these should have proper integration tests [next]:

# Integration tests of these modules

The current solution is that the integration tests are run with a
profile selection: so we choose upfront in the build if we want to
test the wildfly8 modules or the eap6 modules.

Are we still happy with this setup? I don't see a CI job which
verifies the EAP6 modules and I doubt you're all running the tests
twice.
Should we:
 A) add the CI job to verify the other profiles (EAP6 and others as needed)
 B) change approach and have the tests re-run for any build
 C) remove the EAP6 modules

My vote goes for B, even though it will make test runs take a bit
longer. To improve speed we can do other things - to be discussed
separately so I'd hope we don't give the execution speed too much
weight for the above choice.

# WildFly 8 vs WildFly 9

At the last meeting we agreed to support WildFly 9. We didn't decide
at what cost towards WF8 users: should we drop the WF8 modules?
I think I'm ok with dropping the older modules, however since we have
chosen for a module name which includes the version, it's pretty easy
for us to keep the WF8 modules around for now, and it's equally easy
to remove them from the project in future when we don't want to do
that anymore.

Documentation (user complexity) wise the instructions would be
identical so it's not a big burden to explain - one would just need to
pick the right set of modules.

I would prefer to keep the WF8 modules around for a little bit, but
only if we agree on an integration testing strategy which is able to
cover all the modules we build.

# JBoss Logger version

As a reminder, there's an update for JBoss Logger which - if applied -
will make it harder for OGM to work on WF8. Gunnar is making some
interesting suggestions to work around this on OGM-803 but let's see
first if
 - we really want to keep WF8
 - cant we not simply wait to update, I don't see why we should seel
trouble by upgrading this component now.

Sanne