[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14117?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Liam Miller-Cushon updated BEAM-14117:
--------------------------------------
Summary: Unvendor bytebuddy dependency (was: Consider unvendoring
bytebuddy dependency)
> Unvendor bytebuddy dependency
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: BEAM-14117
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14117
> Project: Beam
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: sdk-java-core
> Reporter: Liam Miller-Cushon
> Priority: P2
>
> Vendoring the bytebuddy dep was introduced in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-1019:
> {quote}We encountered backward incompatible changes in bytebuddy during
> upgrading to Mockito 2.0.
> Shading bytebuddy helps to address them and future issues.
> {quote}
> This makes it harder to upgrade the bytebuddy version (e.g.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-14065,
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BEAM-12241).
> Vendoring or shading bytebuddy is discouraged by the upstream owners of the
> library, see e.g. [https://github.com/assertj/assertj-core/issues/2470] where
> assertj was migrated off a shaded version:
> {quote}As Byte Buddy retains compatibility, not shading the library would
> allow running recent JVMs without an update of assertj but only BB. Other
> libraries like Mockito or Hibernate do not shade BB and there are no known
> issues with this approach. In case of an error, stack traces would also be
> easier to process as break points remain intact.
> {quote}
> Does anyone remember additional context about the issues encountered during
> the mockito 2.0 upgrade? Would there be any interest in trying to unvendor
> bytebuddy? I'm happy to help route issues to the upstream bytebuddy and
> mockito projects, in general I think they want to support making it possible
> to use bytebuddy without shading it.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
