[wildfly-dev] update on WildFly NoSQL prototype integration...

Emmanuel Bernard emmanuel at hibernate.org
Mon May 23 04:19:15 EDT 2016

On Thu 2016-05-12 13:41, Sanne Grinovero wrote:
> On 12 May 2016 at 12:24, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel at hibernate.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11 mai 2016, at 16:02, Scott Marlow <smarlow at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Hibernate OGM should still be usable without WF; So maybe there should
> >>> be a separate project/repo which defines an SPI to obtain/manage
> >>> connections and implementations for different NoSQL stores?
> >>
> >> Excellent suggestion,  perhaps the SPI could be under
> >> https://github.com/jboss, which is a common area for sharing.  Possible
> >> locations for creating the per NoSQL store implementations could be
> >> https://github.com/jboss or https://github.com/hibernate or
> >> https://github.com/wildfly.
> >
> > I'm starting to think that this might be way overkill. If we are creating a sub project just to share between 20 and 50 lines of code per provider and the overhead code to abstract property configuration to plus OGM and WF ones, we are losing more than gaining.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> I agree it's overkill, and have an alternative proposal:
> Hibernate OGM should define an interface which is appropriate for its
> own consumption; the Wildfly NoSQL subssystem can have its own
> interface so to not depend on OGM, but they would be somewhat similar
> for each given NoSQL technology we intend to support in this way.
> Then JipiJapa can inject an adaptor into the OGM boostrap phase,
> delegating from one to the other. So only the OGM specific JipiJapa
> module would need to depend on both interfaces.
> If this dependency is not desirable either, then I think we can live
> with a non-typesafe generic provider of things.

But in the end it's just a freaking
if (inWF==true) { //fetch from JNDI } else { ///do it yourself }

Why do you want two layers of abstractions?

More information about the wildfly-dev mailing list