Consider making Row and Record generic: Row<R extends Record<R>> and Record<R extends Record<R>>

[lukaseder]

There are various places throughout the jOOQ API, where the <R> type cannot be accessed because Row and Record are not generic.

In other places, the resulting API is subtly wrong, as can be seen in Record.map(RecordMapper<Record, E>) (#2465). Without any recursive type definition on Record itself, there is no way to solve this through the Record type hierarchy using covariance or contravariance.

Alternatively, if we embrace using Java 8's Optional<R> as a result, we could leverage Optional.map(), which doesn't have this restriction...

---

See also:

• https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/jooq-user/dq9r1bZ10vA

[lukaseder]

There have been very few cases where this would have been useful, but many cases, where it would have been a pain, especially for users. In addition to being a backwards incompatible change with tons of compiler regressions in user code due to the new generics semantics and the hard to capture recursive type variable, let's just reject this.