The jhighlight people just released a 1.0.2 jar which fixes the problem. It has a different path in Maven, but otherwise it is compatible. See: https://github.com/codelibs/jhighlight/issues/4
Karl On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: > OK I opened SOLR-7317. > > Shai > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > >> We should remove it. It would not be a good thing to knowingly release >> incompatible code. Then, upgrade to the latest Tika when we can. >> >> Upayavira >> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015, at 04:41 PM, Steve Rowe wrote: >> > +1 to remove. >> > >> > > On Mar 26, 2015, at 4:43 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > Looks like 5.1 release process will start soon - should we remove >> this .jar before the release? I see there's some progress on TIKA-1581, but >> it doesn't look like it's going to be resolved that soon. >> > > >> > > Shai >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > I suspect that the classes in question are in fact *not* used by Tika >> in any capacity, but they are in the jar nonetheless. So one solution >> would be to simply repackage the jar. I'd like to see what the Tika team >> says. >> > > >> > > Karl >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > although it might be easier to work with Tika to fix that and then >> upgrade again. >> > > >> > > If jhighlight was brought into Solr distribution as a transitive >> dependency then you're right, but since we pull it in explicitly (even if >> for runtime purposes only), I think we should remove it, whether Tika >> corrects the problem or not. We can put a note in our NOTICE file for users >> to download the jar themselves until Tika fixes the problem. >> > > >> > > If people agree, I will remove it from our code. >> > > >> > > Shai >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Karl Wright <daddy...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > I have created a ticket: TIKA-1581. ManifoldCF also has a Tika >> dependency, so thank you for noting the problem. >> > > >> > > Karl >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:03 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >> > > You are right -both projects need to remove it, although it might be >> > > easier to work with Tika to fix that and then upgrade again. >> > > >> > > Upayavira >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 05:26 AM, Shai Erera wrote: >> > > > Sorry for the spam, just wanted to note that this dependency was >> added by >> > > > Steve in SOLR-6130 to resolve improper Tika 1.4->1.5 upgrade. >> > > > >> > > > The core issue lies with Tika IMO (they shouldn't rely on LGPL code >> too I >> > > > believe), but I am not sure if it's OK that we distribute this .jar >> > > > ourselves. >> > > > >> > > > Shai >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:17 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > One update, I did find this dependency is explicitly set in >> > > > > solr/contrib/extraction/ivy.xml, under the Tika dependencies >> section: >> > > > > >> > > > > <!-- Tika dependencies - see >> > > > > >> http://tika.apache.org/1.3/gettingstarted.html#Using_Tika_as_a_Maven_dependency >> > > > > --> >> > > > > <!-- When upgrading Tika, upgrade dependencies versions and >> add any >> > > > > new ones >> > > > > (except slf4j-api, commons-codec, commons-logging, >> > > > > commons-httpclient, geronimo-stax-api_1.0_spec, jcip-annotations, >> xml-apis, >> > > > > asm) >> > > > > WARNING: Don't add netcdf / unidataCommon (partially >> LGPL code) >> > > > > --> >> > > > > ... >> > > > > <dependency org="com.uwyn" name="jhighlight" >> > > > > rev="${/com.uwyn/jhighlight}" conf="compile"/> >> > > > > >> > > > > So it does seem like needed by Tika only and I guess it's a >> runtime >> > > > > dependency, so if we don't want to release this LGPL library, we >> can omit >> > > > > it and put a section in the NOTICE file? >> > > > > >> > > > > Shai >> > > > > >> > > > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:11 AM, Shai Erera <ser...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > >> Hi >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Solr's contrib/extraction contains jhighlight-1.0.jar which >> declares >> > > > >> itself as dual CDDL or LGPL license. However, some of its >> classes are >> > > > >> distributed only under LGPL, e.g. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> com.uwyn.jhighlight.highlighter. >> > > > >> CppHighlighter.java >> > > > >> GroovyHighlighter.java >> > > > >> JavaHighlighter.java >> > > > >> XmlHighlighter.java >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I downloaded the sources from Maven ( >> > > > >> >> http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=com/uwyn/jhighlight/1.0/jhighlight-1.0-sources.jar >> ) >> > > > >> to confirm that, and also found this SVN repo: >> > > > >> http://svn.rifers.org/jhighlight/tags/release-1.0, though the >> project's >> > > > >> website seems to not exist anymore ( >> https://jhighlight.dev.java.net/). >> > > > >> >> > > > >> I didn't find any direct usage of it in our code, so I guess it's >> > > > >> probably needed by a 3rd party dependency, such as Tika. >> Therefore if we >> > > > >> e.g. omit it, things will compile, but may fail at runtime. >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Is it OK that we distribute this .jar? >> > > > >> >> > > > >> Shai >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org >> >> >
