[infinispan-dev] Proposal for moving Hibernate 2l provider to Infinispan

Steve Ebersole steve at hibernate.org
Wed May 31 11:02:19 EDT 2017

Just a heads up - FWIW I doubt my reply goes through to the entire
infinispan-dev list.

Replies inline...

3. What should be the artifact name? Should it be 'hibernate-infinispan'
> like it is today? The difference with the existing cache provider would be
> the groupId. Or some other artifact id?

Since you use Maven (IIUC) you could just publish a relocation...

4. Should the main artifact contain the hibernate major version it belongs
> to? E.g. assuming we take 'hibernate-infinispan', should it be like that,
> or should it instead be 'hibernate5-infinispan'? This is where it'd be
> interesting to hear about our past Lucene directory or Query integration
> experience.

Probably, but (no promises) one thing I wanted to look at since Hibernate
baselines on Java 8, is to maintain the existing SPI using default methods
as a bridge.  But failing that, I think your suggestion is the best option.

> 5. A thing to consider also is whether to maintain same package naming.
> We're currently using 'org.hibernate.cache.infinispan.*'. From a
> compatibility sense, it'd help to keep same package since users reference
> region factory fully qualified class names. We'd also continue to be sole
> owners of 'org.hibernate.cache.infinispan.*'. However, I dunno whether
> having 'org.hibernate...' package name within Infinispan repo would create
> other issues?

FWIW Hibernate offers "short naming" or "friendly naming" for many
configurable settings, cache providers being one.  For hibernate-infinispan
we register 2: "infinispan" and "infinispan-jndi".  You can see this
in org.hibernate.cache.infinispan.StrategyRegistrationProviderImpl.  That
approach will continue to work when you move it.  The point being that
users do not specify the class name in config, they'd just specify
"infinispan", "infinispan-jndi", etc.

6. Testing wise, the cache provider is currently tested one test at the
> time, using JUnit. The testsuite already runs fast enough and I'd prefer
> not to change anything in this area right now. Is that Ok? Or is there any
> desire to move it to TestNG?

Hmmm, that is actually surprising... I thought the hibernate-infinispan
 provider tests were still disabled as they had routinely caused
intermittent failures of the build.  I guess this was rectified?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/infinispan-dev/attachments/20170531/09539bff/attachment.html 

More information about the infinispan-dev mailing list