[hibernate-dev] Could we have a Hibernate 5.3 compatibility layer that includes the ORM 5.1 Hibernate Session class

Scott Marlow smarlow at redhat.com
Thu Feb 8 14:54:34 EST 2018

On 02/08/2018 01:50 PM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
> What is meant by "(JPA/native application) compatible with the Hibernate 
> ORM versions that we include"?

It means that for a while, we can only upgrade WildFly to newer 
Hibernate ORM versions that are compatible with one of the two Hibernate 
versions that we include with WildFly 12+.

> Both 5.3 and 6.0 are JPA 2.2, but 5.1 is JPA 2.1.  Does that mean they 
> violate that requirement?

I think the 5.3 versus 6.0 question, is more will applications written 
against the (application level) Hibernate 5.3 ORM classes, work 
correctly against 6.0.  For determining which classes exactly, are 
application level classes, the Hibernate team should decide that.

If the design for Hibernate ORM code changes, misses an application 
compatibility issue that we miss, that cannot be avoided.  However, when 
the WildFly team looks at the latest/greatest version of Hibernate ORM 
to include, we will face pressure against bringing in any newer ORM 
version that requires application coding/configuration changes.

> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:30 PM Scott Marlow <smarlow at redhat.com 
> <mailto:smarlow at redhat.com>> wrote:
>     On 01/31/2018 10:49 AM, Steve Ebersole wrote:
>      > Not to mention, I'm really not even sure what this request
>     "means".  As
>      > we all understand 5.1 -> 5.2 unified
>     SessionFactory/EntityManagerFactory
>      > and Session/EntityManager, and that caused us to have to make
>     changes to
>      > certain method signatures - most notably `Session#getFlushMode`
>     was one
>      > of the problems.  Session defined that returning a FlushMode; however
>      > JPA also defined this same method, although poorly named IMO since it
>      > instead returns JPA's FlushModeType (so why the method is not called
>      > `#getFlushModeType` is beyond me.  Anyway the point is that there
>     is no
>      > way to rectify these - there is no way that we can define a contract
>      > that simultaneously conforms to both.
>      >
>      > As Sanne said, and as we all agreed during f2f, the best approach
>     is to
>      > have both versions available for use.
>     Which Hibernate ORM release would be best for the second version that we
>     include?  ORM 5.3 or 6.0?
>     Agreed that we will still include ORM 5.1, in WildFly.  For the second
>     ORM version that we include (whatever the version is), we have an
>     additional requirement now.  Future releases of WildFly need to be
>     (JPA/native application) compatible with the Hibernate ORM versions that
>     we include.
>     We will be releasing WildFly more frequently, and want users to be able
>     to able to keep up with our pace, as we release more often.
>     Scott

More information about the hibernate-dev mailing list