[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23978?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17703657#comment-17703657
]
Alexey Novakov commented on FLINK-23978:
----------------------------------------
[~chesnay]
This solution requires
{code:java}
"org.apache.flink" % "flink-streaming-scala_2.12" % flinkVersion{code}
to be added in my Flink Scala 2.13 or 3 Job runtime.
It feels a little bit strange for a user project to have Scala 3 or 2.13 as a
main compile version, but in the same time *flink-streaming-scala* has to be
added into project depencies with *"_2.12"* suffix because we need
_DefaultScalaProductFieldAccessorFactory_ on the classpath.
Although this is just a naming/packaging point, I am wondering if it would it
be better to place this single class into a new Flink maven module like
"flink-scala-product" or so?
> FieldAccessor has direct scala dependency
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: FLINK-23978
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLINK-23978
> Project: Flink
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: API / DataStream
> Reporter: Chesnay Schepler
> Assignee: Chesnay Schepler
> Priority: Major
> Labels: pull-request-available
> Fix For: 1.15.0
>
>
> The FieldAccessor class in flink-streaming-java has a hard dependency on
> scala. It would be ideal if we could restrict this dependencies to
> flink-streaming-scala.
> We could move the SimpleProductFieldAccessor & RecursiveProductFieldAccessor
> to flink-streaming-scala, and load them in the FieldAccessorFactory via
> reflection.
> This is one of a few steps that would allow the Java Datastream API to be
> used without scala being on the classpath.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
