Thanks Lukas,
I'll check out the links,
> That must be a bug in Proguard, I suspect? I don't see anything wrong
with the declarations of those types. I don't know what to do about this
exception, not knowing Proguard...
I did get this working with the
-keep interface org.jooq.** { <methods>; }
-keep class org.jooq.** { *; }
proguard rules,
Kevin
On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 7:27 AM Lukas Eder <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Thanks for your message.
>
> The mandatory and optional dependencies are summarised in the
> module-info.java file here (for reasons we might never truly know, the
> keyword is "static", not "optional"):
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/blob/main/jOOQ/src/main/java/module-info.java
>
> You'll find the same information in the pom.xml file, probably a bit less
> concise:
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/blob/main/jOOQ/pom.xml
>
> Those dependencies that are declared optional really are.
>
> Some of these are transitive dependencies, also likely optional in the
> respective API (e.g. javax.annotation). I would expect a tool like Proguard
> to be optional-dependency-aware? It is not a very esoteric concept in
> neither Maven, module-info.java, or even OSGi. It should be possible to at
> least configure Proguard to drop all such warnings, assuming the relevant
> libraries correctly handle optionality.
>
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2024 at 1:40 PM Kevin Jones <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Some of these I'm pretty sure are safe to ignore (the slf4j ones for
>> example), others I'm not so sure about (the jakarta.persistence warnings).
>>
>
> It has always been optional. Starting with jOOQ 3.20, the dependency will
> be moved into its own module, so it won't be there by default, anymore:
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/16500
>
>
>> However if I do disable the warnings then I can run them app but I get:
>>
>> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IncompatibleClassChangeError: class
>> org.jooq.FieldOrConstraint cannot extend sealed interface
>> org.jooq.TableElement
>>
>
> That must be a bug in Proguard, I suspect? I don't see anything wrong with
> the declarations of those types. I don't know what to do about this
> exception, not knowing Proguard...
>
> Working with sealed types has been an experiment since jOOQ 3.16:
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/12757
>
> It will be abandoned in jOOQ 3.20 as it didn't bring any benefits, but
> caused quite some compilation overheads:
> https://github.com/jOOQ/jOOQ/issues/16444
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "jOOQ User Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jooq-user/CAB4ELO4tvADFP%2BUFKozZEe9v7tnt8q8zrDQxy9be8feAkVaKyg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jooq-user/CAB4ELO4tvADFP%2BUFKozZEe9v7tnt8q8zrDQxy9be8feAkVaKyg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
Kevin Jones
KnowledgeSpike
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ
User Group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jooq-user/CAKT%3DYsOWyaiMkAx2QuN_vm7q5Bs4Wx80M0MhxKj7TCyOPP%3DRrg%40mail.gmail.com.
