I think it's going through, we've approved you in the past. Replies below:
> On 31 May 2017, at 17:02, Steve Ebersole <st...@hibernate.org> wrote: > > 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... Oh, didn't know about that. Yeah, I think we'd do that: https://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-relocation.html > > > 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. Ah good to know, I wasn't aware of it. I'll look into that. > 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? They seem pretty stable to me when I run them locally. _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
