[iot-pmc] [CQ 21907] org.hibernate:hibernate-core:5.0.12

[emo-ip-team@xxxxxxxxxxx]

http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21907





--- Comment #15 from Kai Hudalla <kai.hudalla@xxxxxxxx>  2020-05-25 03:36:09 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > 
> > Well, it actually shouldn't be a big issue to replace Hibernate with
> > EclipseLink as the JPA provider. Assuming, that the application indeed is built
> > on top of JPA and not Hibernate ...
> > 
> > [1] https://www.codeflow.site/de/article/spring-eclipselink
> > [2]
> > https://blog.marcnuri.com/spring-data-jpa-eclipselink-configuring-spring-boot-to-use-eclipselink-as-the-jpa-provider/
> > 
> > > 
> > > My recommendation is that the PMC approve this CQ and ask the IP Team to
> > > initiate the process of seeking board approval to use the content under the
> > > current license.
> > 
> > FMPOV the project team should do some experiments regarding replacing the JPA
> > provider first. Base on the outcome the board might still need to "sanction"
> > the use of Hibernate in already released versions ...
> > 
> We have completed some experiments with EclipseLink as JPA implementation and
> we ran into a couple difficulties, among which the most troubling one are
> severe performance issues that prevent the integration tests from completing
> and apart from that some corrupted data in the test database that we used. Also
> literature on running Spring with EclipseLink instead of Hibernate is very thin
> at best. Therefore we expect that it would take a quite considerable amount of
> effort to make it work, with an uncertain outcome. 
> 
> Question is, how should we proceed here? I personally would prefer to keep
> Hibernate in place if possible. WDYT?
> 

Is that just your personal opinion or did you reach a consensus among the Vorto
committers? If so, then I suggest we proceed as suggested by Wayne.

> > > 
> > > IP Team: I am aware of at least one other project that is in a very similar
> > > situation, so my recommendation is that we ask the board for the broadest
> > > approval possible. It's likely that they will want us to approve this on a
> > > project-by-project basis, but we should ask for "all projects".
> > > 
> > > Since, AFAICT the project is not actively distributing the content in question
> > > from our download server, I suggest that we wait for the board's decision to
> > > decide what to do with the older downloads.
> > > 
> > 
> 


-- 
Configure CQmail: http://dev.eclipse.org/ipzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the CQ.