Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
I know I reproduced it locally earlier this week.
Can't get back to it today but I can push a test case next week.
IMHO, it's very low priority.
On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:04 AM Steve Ebersole wrote:
> Trying to make sure I understand.. so the report is just wrong? Or is
> there some difference in your model versus theirs?
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM andrea boriero
> wrote:
>
>> yes also for the MappedSuperclass
>>
>> from:
>>
>> @MappedSuperclass
>> public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity {
>> @Column( name = "CODE")
>> private String code;
>>
>> @Column( name = "NAME")
>> private String name;
>> }
>>
>> @Entity
>> public class CatalogEntity extends AbstractCatalogEntity {
>> @Id
>> private Long id;
>> }
>>
>> I obtained :
>>
>> @Generated(value =
>> "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor")
>> @StaticMetamodel(AbstractCatalogEntity.class)
>> public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity_ {
>>
>> public static volatile SingularAttribute
>> code;
>> public static volatile SingularAttribute
>> name;
>>
>> public static final String CODE = "code";
>> public static final String NAME = "name";
>>
>> }
>>
>> @Generated(value =
>> "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor")
>> @StaticMetamodel(CatalogEntity.class)
>> public abstract class CatalogEntity_ extends
>> org.hibernate.userguide.model.AbstractCatalogEntity_ {
>>
>> public static volatile SingularAttribute id;
>>
>> public static final String ID = "id";
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:52, Guillaume Smet
>> wrote:
>>
>> > The generated model of the MappedSuperclass?
>> >
>> > Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not
>> >> defined in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the
>> subclasses
>> >> extending it.
>> >>
>> >> I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify
>> >> any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a
>> >> subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is
>> correct.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet > >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right
>> access
>> >>> type for a mapped super class:
>> >>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 .
>> >>>
>> >>> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole
>> placement
>> >>> of
>> >>> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might
>> not
>> >>> be
>> >>> defined (this is the OP's case).
>> >>>
>> >>> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but
>> >>> the
>> >>> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access
>> type
>> >>> of
>> >>> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping
>> annotations
>> >>> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the
>> >>> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type".
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations
>> >>> placement
>> >>> if there is no @Id annotation.
>> >>>
>> >>> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me
>> :).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts?
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Guillaume
>> >>> ___
>> >>> 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
>>
>
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
Trying to make sure I understand.. so the report is just wrong? Or is
there some difference in your model versus theirs?
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:22 PM andrea boriero wrote:
> yes also for the MappedSuperclass
>
> from:
>
> @MappedSuperclass
> public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity {
> @Column( name = "CODE")
> private String code;
>
> @Column( name = "NAME")
> private String name;
> }
>
> @Entity
> public class CatalogEntity extends AbstractCatalogEntity {
> @Id
> private Long id;
> }
>
> I obtained :
>
> @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor")
> @StaticMetamodel(AbstractCatalogEntity.class)
> public abstract class AbstractCatalogEntity_ {
>
> public static volatile SingularAttribute
> code;
> public static volatile SingularAttribute
> name;
>
> public static final String CODE = "code";
> public static final String NAME = "name";
>
> }
>
> @Generated(value = "org.hibernate.jpamodelgen.JPAMetaModelEntityProcessor")
> @StaticMetamodel(CatalogEntity.class)
> public abstract class CatalogEntity_ extends
> org.hibernate.userguide.model.AbstractCatalogEntity_ {
>
> public static volatile SingularAttribute id;
>
> public static final String ID = "id";
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:52, Guillaume Smet
> wrote:
>
> > The generated model of the MappedSuperclass?
> >
> > Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure.
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not
> >> defined in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the
> subclasses
> >> extending it.
> >>
> >> I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify
> >> any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a
> >> subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is
> correct.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right
> access
> >>> type for a mapped super class:
> >>> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 .
> >>>
> >>> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement
> >>> of
> >>> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not
> >>> be
> >>> defined (this is the OP's case).
> >>>
> >>> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but
> >>> the
> >>> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type
> >>> of
> >>> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping
> annotations
> >>> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the
> >>> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type".
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations
> >>> placement
> >>> if there is no @Id annotation.
> >>>
> >>> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :).
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Guillaume
> >>> ___
> >>> 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
>
___
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
Yes, we're doing something like that in MapStruct, too: https://github.com/mapstruct/mapstruct/blob/master/processor/src/main/java/org/mapstruct/ap/MappingProcessor.java#L114 There we need to wait with code generation for processed classes until their hierarchy has stabilized (other APs may generate superclasses that we must consider). Perhaps the Code ist helpful to you. --Gunnar Am 10.01.2019 15:01 schrieb "Steve Ebersole" : Hm, seems like the "AP delayed generation" approach is a possibility. From a quick search: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41874462/java-annotation-process-not-yet-generated-elements https://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/javax/annotation/processing/RoundEnvironment.html#processingOver%28%29 Disclaimer - I have not tried this, just read about it... On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:18 AM Steve Ebersole wrote: > This is one of the cases (there are others) where we do not completely > follow the JPA spec. > > TBH I'm not really sure how we would address this in an annotation > processor, though granted my knowledge of those APIs is limited. But as I > understand it we have to generate the metamodel class as we process the > model class without knowledge of or access to other classes. Specifically > here, we see the MappedSuperclasss first as it is a superclass and the > compiler needs to process it first. > > I had planned on re-looking at this in 7 to offer a non-AP solution to > metamodel generation. I don't think anything requires that we support this > through an AP. > > There are other problems using an AP for this, namely it is extremely > difficult to incorporate orm.xml info whether partial or complete. > > I guess a solution for now would involve somehow delaying the generation > of the metamodel classes until the end of the AP cycle which (IIUC) would > only really work with `proc:only` > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 6:29 AM Guillaume Smet > wrote: > >> The generated model of the MappedSuperclass? >> >> Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure. >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero >> wrote: >> >> > I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not >> defined >> > in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the subclasses >> extending >> > it. >> > >> > I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify >> > any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a >> > subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is >> correct. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right >> access >> >> type for a mapped super class: >> >> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 . >> >> >> >> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole >> placement of >> >> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might >> not be >> >> defined (this is the OP's case). >> >> >> >> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but >> the >> >> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access >> type of >> >> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping >> annotations >> >> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the >> >> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type". >> >> >> >> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations >> placement >> >> if there is no @Id annotation. >> >> >> >> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :). >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Guillaume >> >> ___ >> >> 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 >> > ___ 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
Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
Hm, seems like the "AP delayed generation" approach is a possibility. From a quick search: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/41874462/java-annotation-process-not-yet-generated-elements https://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/javax/annotation/processing/RoundEnvironment.html#processingOver%28%29 Disclaimer - I have not tried this, just read about it... On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 7:18 AM Steve Ebersole wrote: > This is one of the cases (there are others) where we do not completely > follow the JPA spec. > > TBH I'm not really sure how we would address this in an annotation > processor, though granted my knowledge of those APIs is limited. But as I > understand it we have to generate the metamodel class as we process the > model class without knowledge of or access to other classes. Specifically > here, we see the MappedSuperclasss first as it is a superclass and the > compiler needs to process it first. > > I had planned on re-looking at this in 7 to offer a non-AP solution to > metamodel generation. I don't think anything requires that we support this > through an AP. > > There are other problems using an AP for this, namely it is extremely > difficult to incorporate orm.xml info whether partial or complete. > > I guess a solution for now would involve somehow delaying the generation > of the metamodel classes until the end of the AP cycle which (IIUC) would > only really work with `proc:only` > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 6:29 AM Guillaume Smet > wrote: > >> The generated model of the MappedSuperclass? >> >> Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure. >> >> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero >> wrote: >> >> > I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not >> defined >> > in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the subclasses >> extending >> > it. >> > >> > I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify >> > any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a >> > subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is >> correct. >> > >> > >> > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right >> access >> >> type for a mapped super class: >> >> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 . >> >> >> >> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole >> placement of >> >> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might >> not be >> >> defined (this is the OP's case). >> >> >> >> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but >> the >> >> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access >> type of >> >> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping >> annotations >> >> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the >> >> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type". >> >> >> >> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations >> placement >> >> if there is no @Id annotation. >> >> >> >> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :). >> >> >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Guillaume >> >> ___ >> >> 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 >> > ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
This is one of the cases (there are others) where we do not completely follow the JPA spec. TBH I'm not really sure how we would address this in an annotation processor, though granted my knowledge of those APIs is limited. But as I understand it we have to generate the metamodel class as we process the model class without knowledge of or access to other classes. Specifically here, we see the MappedSuperclasss first as it is a superclass and the compiler needs to process it first. I had planned on re-looking at this in 7 to offer a non-AP solution to metamodel generation. I don't think anything requires that we support this through an AP. There are other problems using an AP for this, namely it is extremely difficult to incorporate orm.xml info whether partial or complete. I guess a solution for now would involve somehow delaying the generation of the metamodel classes until the end of the AP cycle which (IIUC) would only really work with `proc:only` On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 6:29 AM Guillaume Smet wrote: > The generated model of the MappedSuperclass? > > Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure. > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero > wrote: > > > I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not > defined > > in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the subclasses > extending > > it. > > > > I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify > > any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a > > subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is > correct. > > > > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right access > >> type for a mapped super class: > >> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 . > >> > >> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement > of > >> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not > be > >> defined (this is the OP's case). > >> > >> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but > the > >> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type > of > >> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping > annotations > >> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the > >> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type". > >> > >> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations > placement > >> if there is no @Id annotation. > >> > >> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :). > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> -- > >> Guillaume > >> ___ > >> 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 > ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
The generated model of the MappedSuperclass? Because the one of the subclass is correct for sure. On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 12:44 PM andrea boriero wrote: > I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not defined > in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the subclasses extending > it. > > I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify > any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a > subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is correct. > > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right access >> type for a mapped super class: >> https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 . >> >> Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement of >> the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not be >> defined (this is the OP's case). >> >> I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but the >> OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type of >> an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping annotations >> on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the >> entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type". >> >> I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations placement >> if there is no @Id annotation. >> >> If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :). >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -- >> Guillaume >> ___ >> 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
Re: [hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
I'm not sure I have fully understood the issue, the @Id may be not defined in the MappedSuperclass but for sure it must be in the subclasses extending it. I have tried and I can reproduce the issue only if I do not specify any @Id annotation in the subclass, but as soon as I add the @Id to a subclass of the MappedSuperclass the generated static metamodel is correct. On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 11:04, Guillaume Smet wrote: > Hi, > > We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right access > type for a mapped super class: > https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 . > > Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement of > the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not be > defined (this is the OP's case). > > I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but the > OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type of > an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping annotations > on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the > entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type". > > I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations placement > if there is no @Id annotation. > > If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :). > > Thoughts? > > -- > Guillaume > ___ > 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
[hibernate-dev] Default access type and MappedSuperclass
Hi, We recently had this issue opened about us not choosing the right access type for a mapped super class: https://hibernate.atlassian.net/browse/HHH-12938 . Hibernate currently base the access type decision on the sole placement of the @Id annotation, which, in the case of a @MappedSuperclass might not be defined (this is the OP's case). I closed the issue explaining what we do and pointing a workaround but the OP rightfully replied with the JPA spec saying "The default access type of an entity hierarchy is determined by the placement of mapping annotations on the attributes of the entity classes and mapped superclasses of the entity hierarchy that do not explicitly specify an access type". I'm wondering if we should also consider the @Column annotations placement if there is no @Id annotation. If the answer is that it's already fixed in 6, it's all good for me :). Thoughts? -- Guillaume ___ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
