[hibernate-dev] SchemaManagementTool changes for 5.1 (was Re: 5.1 tentative release date)

[andrea boriero]

+1 for `--action` option with "create", "drop", "create-and-drop", and
"none"
not sure if as default value is better "create" or "create-and-drop"

On 3 February 2016 at 17:21, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:

> For anyone familiar using SchemaExport from the command line...  Am I
> interpreting this correctly when I see that `--create` means "just create"
> and `--drop` means "just drop"? From what I can tell, passing both seems to
> (looking at the code) cause just drop to happen.
>
> Anyone else find that extremely counter-intuitive?  Any objection to
> instead exposing an `--action` option that can be one of "create", "drop",
> "create-and-drop", and "none"?  And where "create-and-drop" is the default?
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:50 AM Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:
>
> > The API does need to change.  So we can leave the classes, but every
> usage
> > of them would need to be adjusted.  Well every usage other than CLI,
> which
> > you mention, which is a decent point.   So I'll leave the classes in
> place,
> > but change the contracts.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 12:58 AM Gunnar Morling <gunnar at hibernate.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> When you say dropping, what would be the alternative for CLI users? It
> >> seems like a strong change to do in a minor revision.
> >>
> >> What are the required changes you need to do here? My hope would have
> >> been that the API of these tools would not have to change.
> >>
> >> 2016-02-02 22:10 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>:
> >> > Part of the work here is going to require significant changes to
> >> > org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaExport,
> >> > org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaUpdate and
> >> > org.hibernate.tool.hbm2ddl.SchemaValidator.  Significant as in current
> >> > usages would not work at all.  So does it make sense to do those
> >> changes, or
> >> > to simply drop those classes?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 1:15 PM Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I am debating with myself about reusing
> >> >> `javax.persistence.schema-generation.database.action` and
> >> >> `javax.persistence.schema-generation.scripts.action` in terms of this
> >> new
> >> >> unified support.  The debate point being the fact that we'd have to
> >> have
> >> >> those accept an extended range of values which potentially hurts
> users
> >> in
> >> >> terms of JPA provider portability.  For example, if they have:
> >> >>
> >> >> javax.persistence.schema-generation.database.action=validate
> >> >>
> >> >> Hibernate would understand that, but other providers likely would
> not.
> >> >> This is beyond the concept of "strict compliance" I started in SQM in
> >> my
> >> >> opinion.  Here we are moving toward a unification, meaning we expect
> >> people
> >> >> to use this.
> >> >>
> >> >> So do we reuse the JPA names?
> >> >>
> >> >> On a related note.. in regards to the fact that JPA splits action
> >> between
> >> >> script and database target whereas hbm2ddl defines just a singular
> >> action
> >> >> value... does anyone know of a real case where someone defines
> >> different
> >> >> actions between script and database?  I mean aside from one being
> >> NONE.  I
> >> >> mean cases where they say we should do "create" for scripts but send
> >> >> "drop-and-create" to the database?  That just seems odd to me.  I
> >> think we
> >> >> have to account for the split since we have to account for JPA, and
> >> that
> >> >> model fits both.  I was just curious
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:01 PM Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org
> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:40 AM Gunnar Morling <
> gunnar at hibernate.org
> >> >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 2016-01-29 17:18 GMT+01:00 Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org>:
> >> >>>> > I also plan on adding an @Incubating annotation for just such
> >> things
> >> >>>> > :)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Yes, please. We have an annotation @Experimental in OGM which we
> use
> >> >>>> for tagging APIs under development.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> See https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-10487.  I also
> >> started a
> >> >>> separate discussion about this on the dev list.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> BTW, as an extension to changing  SchemaManagementTool another thing
> >> I'd
> >> >>> like to add is some hook account for Envers use cases.  Specifically
> >> the
> >> >>> idea there is to be able to do a few things:
> >> >>> 1) perform a selective create/drop.  selective in terms of just
> >> certain
> >> >>> objects.  This may be achievable through the new filter concept,
> >> although
> >> >>> we'd at least need a way to identify Envers tables from non-Envers
> >> tables.
> >> >>> Think of starting to use Hibernate+Envers on a schema that already
> >> exists.
> >> >>> 2) perform "actions".  This is maybe beyond "schema tooling";
> perhaps
> >> it
> >> >>> is more of a SessionFactory boot concept.  But one thing Envers
> >> misses today
> >> >>> that would be good to add is the ability to "prime" the audit
> tables.
> >> >>> Meaning, for audited entities that do not have entries in their
> audit
> >> table,
> >> >>> create one.  This for sure goes beyond simple SQL statements though.
> >>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>