org.hibernate.annotations vs. javax.persistence

Is it a bad idea to use the annotations from the

javax.persistence package

instead of using the

org.hibernate.annotations annotations

I know that using javax.peristence does introduce yet another dependency. But if I ignore that, what are the pros/cons?

Solution 1:

Quite the opposite.

Hibernate is an implementation of the Java Persistence API, and where possible, you should use the standard annotations (in javax.persistence). This way, you could theoretically run your code on other JPA implementations.

Only when you need Hibernate-specific functionality should you use the Hibernate annotations.

The extra dependency is only on the JPA interface/annotation jar files and very light.

Solution 2:

Another cons in:

http://www.mkyong.com/hibernate/cascade-jpa-hibernate-annotation-common-mistake/

where this:

@OneToMany(fetch = FetchType.LAZY, 
  cascade = {CascadeType.PERSIST,CascadeType.MERGE }, 
  mappedBy = "stock")
public Set<StockDailyRecord> getStockDailyRecords() {
    return this.stockDailyRecords;
}

with this:

stockDailyRecords.setStock(stock);        
stock.getStockDailyRecords().add(stockDailyRecords);

session.save(stock);
session.getTransaction().commit();

won't work as @OneToMany is from JPA, it expects a JPA cascade – javax.persistence.CascadeType. However when you save it with Hibernate session, org.hibernate.engine.Cascade will do the following check:

if ( style.doCascade( action ) ) {

and Hibernate save process will causing a ACTION_SAVE_UPDATE action, but the JPA will pass a ACTION_PERSIST and ACTION_MERGE, it will not match and cause the cascade to fail to execute.

Solution 3:

I used javax.persistence annotation, and when I replaced Tomcat 6.0 with my Glass Fish, then Tomcat 6.0 included another javax.persistence package that messed everything. I don't think it's a good idea to use javax.persistence annotation. God know what the hell happened with Tomcat and javax.persistence!