[hibernate-dev] Javassist dependency conflict in the ORM modules for WildFly

[Sanne Grinovero]

Ok well that's also odd isn't it?

On 27 Oct 2016 10:38, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:

> No, JPADependencyProcessor - which is adding the dependency - is part of
> "wildfly-jpa", not "jipijapa-hibernate".
>
> 2016-10-27 11:23 GMT+02:00 Sanne Grinovero <sanne at hibernate.org>:
>
>> We could fix 1) as well by incorporating the sources for
>> jipijapa-hibernate52 in ORM.
>>
>> I think it belongs within Hibernate, as it won't be the last time that a
>> new ORM version requires some adaptation of bootstrap.
>>
>> On 27 Oct 2016 09:51, "Gunnar Morling" <gunnar at hibernate.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 2016-10-27 4:27 GMT+02:00 Scott Marlow <smarlow at redhat.com>:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > Unless I am mistaken, Gunnar is suggesting that the Hibernate ORM
>>> module
>>> > (the WF module) export Javassist.  Not the application.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Right, Hibernate ORM's module should be the one exposing it, not the
>>> application nor JipiJapa.
>>>
>>> This allows the ORM module to expose the right version of Javassist (or
>>> none at all eventually) without requiring JipiJapa to have the knowledge
>>> about this. As things stand, Javassist can be considered as part of ORM's
>>> API, hence it's module.xml should be the one making it available to the
>>> user.
>>>
>>> Of course eventually we don't want to expose Javassist at all, but as
>>> long
>>> as we do, the ORM module should be in charge of doing so.
>>>
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > I agree, that is what our WF pull request did, which I think is an
>>> > incremental improvement but that wasn't approved for the reason I gave.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I don't quite get the reasoning here. We all agree that Javassist
>>> shouldn't
>>> be exposed at all (and there is good progress being made towards this by
>>> using ByteBuddy).
>>>
>>> But as long as we do, leaving this responsibility to the ORM module is
>>> the
>>> right thing to do IMO. E.g. what if a JPA provider doesn't need Javassist
>>> at all? Still JipiJapa would currently add it to the deployment.
>>>
>>> I've done the following changes locally:
>>>
>>> 1) Altered JPADependencyProcessor to not add the Javassist dependency to
>>> the deployment
>>> 2) Altered module.xml of jipijapa-hibernate5 to not depend on Javassist
>>> 3) Added a new module for the latest Javassist
>>> 4) Altered module.xml of ORM itself to depend on that new module *and*
>>> re-export it
>>>
>>> With all this in place, the tests in Hibernate Search pass successfully.
>>>
>>> Scott, do you think we can try another PR with that? Again, it doesn't
>>> change things in terms of exposure of Javassist to the application (it is
>>> exposed, just as it was before). But it puts the responsibility for doing
>>> so to ORM's module, allowing us (via the ORM module ZIP we provide) to
>>> expose a newer Javassist version as needed.
>>>
>>> Note that 2 - 4 can be done via the ORM module ZIP. But 1) is a change
>>> that
>>> needs to be done on the WF side, at least I don't see how this could be
>>> overridden?
>>>
>>> I.e. the module ZIP is rather pointless atm. and we don't have a good way
>>> to put the latest ORM into WF user's hands. Would be nice to change this.
>>>
>>> >> Is the ORM testsuite building the WildFly app server from source?
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Good god no :)
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Other option would be to use ByteBuddy to generate proxies instead
>>> of
>>> > >> Javassist to eliminate the application dependency on the Javassist
>>> > >> runtime classes.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Rafael Winterhalter is actually pretty far along on defining support
>>> for
>>> > Byte Buddy in Hibernate[1].  So that might soon be an option.
>>> > >
>>> > > [1] https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-11152
>>> > >
>>> > +100 :)
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>>
>>
>