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 <smar...@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@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev