[hibernate-dev] Javassist enhancement problems with the Hibernate ORM WildFly modules

[Steve Ebersole]

I think the best option in terms of supporting legacy ORM version users
would be to incorporate a change in those branches to shade/shadow
Javassist into ORM specific packages (in hibernate-core).

As I understand it, it is always ORM that does the enhancement, right
Scott?

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 10:12 AM Scott Marlow <smarlow at redhat.com> wrote:

> Ahh, I was confused then, your talking about the WildFly ORM static
> module definition [1], which is not controlled by the JPA container or
> JipiJapa.
>
> >>
> >> We talked about this not long ago and possible solutions, the only
> >> agreed on solution was to eliminate the ORM requirement for Javassist
> >> classes to be on the application classpath, by switching to ByteBuddy.
> >
> > Like I replied to Gunnar, that's a different problem. Sorry all for
> > the confusion!
> >
> > In this case it's Hibernate ORM which is being fed two different
> > versions of Javassist simultaneously; clearly that's our fault. The
> > application classpath is not affected.
> >
> >> Could you could use one of the previously suggested solutions in your
> >> testing?  For example, your application could use a shaded Javassist
> >> jar, that doesn't interfere with the ORM Javassist.
> >
> > I'm not trying to use Javassist. If only the flags to disable it would
> > work I'd be happy to disable it ;-)
>
> There are no flags for controlling [1], if you want control, just fork
> WildFly and make occasional changes to the static module definitions
> that meet your testing changes.  Just keep the changes as minimal as
> possible, so it is easy to sync up the (test purposes) fork.  The
> painful part though might be trying to push your fork to maven, so
> perhaps this is a bad idea, but still wanted to mention it, in case it
> could help.
>
> >>
> >> Why don't you contribute code changes instead to WildFly?  I did
> >> create a pull request for https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-5773
> >> that is still pending, to remove some unneeded dependencies.  This
> >> won't get merged without an EAP jira that goes with it, which I don't
> >> plan to create, since there is no EAP need for the change.  Pull
> >> request is https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/pull/9305.
> >
> > Thanks! Sure I'd be happy to contribute these to WildFly, but knowing
> > which dependency is needed - or MIGHT be needed in certain
> > configurations - requires in depth knowledge of the module one wants
> > to cleanup.
>
> I'm not sure how you could dynamically update the ORM static module
> definition [1].
>
> > I just have the *impression* that some of these dependencies are no
> > longer needed, but going back and forth between projects at different
> > releases - and supposed to support various other versions - doesn't
> > make it easy.
>
> ORM definitely still needs the Javassist dependency, but we should
> drop ASM, as that is not needed, as well as a few others.
>
> >
> > So I suspect that if the adaptor code itself was bundled directly with
> > the consuming JPA implementor, this would come more natural? Just an
> > idea.
>
> I agree, but others didn't when this came up on the JPA expert group
> mailing list before.
>
> >
> > See the problem is Hibernate Search needs to test with latest ORM way
> > more regularly, so I can't wait for PRs to be included in WildFly,
> > even less so if they are on hold because of even slower EAP cycles.
>
> I agree that you really need control over the static ORM module
> definitions.  If you don't want to fork WildFly for testing, perhaps
> you could modify the static orm module definition before starting the
> app server, for the testing.  Sounds like a pita.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>  - we should hide Javassist & Byte Buddy from being exposed to the
> application
> >>
> >> Yes, I agree.  You said this before but its ORM that requires
> >> Javassist classes to be on the application classpath.  ORM does not
> >> require the Byte Buddy classes to be on the application classpath.
> >>
> >>>  - make Byte Buddy an option: I guess improve the JipiJapa itegration
> >>> to support it and move it into its own private module.
> >>
> >> No, ORM doesn't require Byte Buddy to be on the application classpath,
> >> which means that Byte Buddy can be what you want, a separate private
> >> ORM module.  This is a feature of WildFly modules, not JipiJapa.
> >
> > What I mean is that JipiJapa is currently triggering enhancement via
> > Javassist; it's not giving me an option to use Byte Buddy instead.
>
> Its more that the WildFly JPA container, allows the persistence
> provider to register a javax.persistence.spi.ClassTransformer
> instance, to be called when entity class definitions are loaded, as
> per the JPA requirements.  JipiJapa doesn't get involved, as there is
> a standard JPA contract that ORM uses, so JipiJapa couldn't influence
> use of Byte Buddy or CGLIB or Javassist...
>
> >
> > So since the sources for that are in yet another project, it looks
> > like I'd need 6 months to finish my ORM upgrade in Search. Luckily
> > I'll aim for a different solution ;)
> :(
>
> Scott
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly/blob/master/feature-pack/src/main/resources/modules/system/layers/base/org/hibernate/jipijapa-hibernate5/main/module.xml#L47
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>