[Bug] slf4j api class files included in the shaded client jar

[nodece]

I'm migrating the slf4j to 2.0.12 from 1.7.32 on the Apache Pulsar, I noticed the oxia-client shaded includes the slf4j package, and the maven-shaded-plugin cannot exclude the slf4j package from the oxia-client shaded jar:

Could you remove the slf4j package from the shaded jar.

Apache Pulsar PR: apache/pulsar#22391

/cc @lhotari @merlimat

[lhotari]

There's also another problem that the POM doesn't look right for the unshaded version: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/io/streamnative/oxia/oxia-client/0.1.1/oxia-client-0.1.1.pom . It seems that the shaded library would need to be published as a different artifact to support having a separate POM for the shaded library and the unshaded library. At least that's how it is addressed in Pulsar pulsar-client (shaded) and pulsar-client-original (non-shaded).

[lhotari]

In Pulsar, these settings are passed to the shade plugin:

              <createDependencyReducedPom>true</createDependencyReducedPom>
              <promoteTransitiveDependencies>true</promoteTransitiveDependencies>
              <minimizeJar>false</minimizeJar>

https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/57a616eaa79096af5b49db89c99cd39ccc94ec00/pulsar-client-shaded/pom.xml#L125-L127

However, this would require having a solution where the shaded and non-shaded libraries have a separate POM.

[lhotari]

Another shading issue is that it seems to be shading the already shaded netty pulled in with grpc. This could be a problem in some cases since the native libraries aren't properly relocated.

[lhotari]

@nodece please rename the issue report. Something like "DO NOT include the slf4j package to the shaded jar" isn't a great title for an issue report. A better one would be "[Bug] slf4j api class files included in the shaded client jar".

[merlimat]

Good point, we can create a separate module to do the shading, instead of using the classifier.

Also, I think the only reason to use shaded jar in Pulsar was a conflict with gRPC. I was trying to downgrade gRPC here so that we can use same version as Pulsar and remove the need for shading.

[nodece]

For my issue, just to remove the sfl4j from the shaded jar.

Using the different modules to package the original and shaded jar is a good idea.

Also, I think the only reason to use shaded jar in Pulsar was a conflict with gRPC. I was trying to downgrade gRPC here so that we can use same version as Pulsar and remove the need for shading.

When using the original, the oxia needs to match the pulsar netty. Is it correct?

[merlimat]

When using the original, the oxia needs to match the pulsar netty. Is it correct?

Biggest problem is gRPC that has to match, across BK, Pulsar and now Oxia client

[nodece]

This issue has been fixed by oxia@0.1.6.