Why is :jdk8@jar required in the plugin artifact string?

[timothyfroehlich]

Is there a reason for it? My build seems to work fine without it and that seems to be the only artifact that's being published anyways.

[jamesward]

I wonder if this is needed depending on your JVM version. What version are you using?

[timothyfroehlich]

I believe I have 11 and 17 installed. That said there's only one version, the jdk8 version: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/io/grpc/protoc-gen-grpc-kotlin/1.4.1/

…

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 11:46 AM James Ward ***@***.***> wrote: I wonder if this is needed depending on your JVM version. What version are you using? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#568 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABMM2SX77QDXC4KSAUD7FYDYXXUXXAVCNFSM6AAAAABEQSHZHSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSOBYHEZTANRVGM> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

-- Tim Froehlich Test Engineer for DesignCompose and AAOS Located in Austin TX, US Central Time balance/froeht

[jamesward]

I tried removing it in examples/stub/build.gradle.kts and got:

$ ./gradlew :stub:build
> Task :stub:generateProto FAILED

FAILURE: Build failed with an exception.

* What went wrong:
Execution failed for task ':stub:generateProto'.
> Could not resolve all files for configuration ':stub:protobufToolsLocator_grpckt'.
   > Could not find protoc-gen-grpc-kotlin-1.4.1-linux-x86_64.exe (io.grpc:protoc-gen-grpc-kotlin:1.4.1).
     Searched in the following locations:
         https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/io/grpc/protoc-gen-grpc-kotlin/1.4.1/protoc-gen-grpc-kotlin-1.4.1-linux-x86_64.exe

For reference, here is the PR to protobuf-gradle-plugin that added support for JAR plugins:
google/protobuf-gradle-plugin#168

Can you give more details on how you removed the classifier and got it working?

[timothyfroehlich]

Well, I don't know. Perhaps I hadn't cleared my cache properly or perhaps I built the wrong target. I noticed it while working on another team's code. But the PR you linked does seem to say that it was needed so perhaps it is. It's not worth me digging in further, I just wanted to try and remove some odd looking code.