I'm inclined to agree with that. To me this part of the spec only applies
to binary data which means maven is wrong

On Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:

> Tapestry uses the JDK code to read the Manifest files so I suspect this is
> a problem creating the manifest rather than Tapestry reading it.
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Barry Books <[email protected]<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > I had a module class with a package name the resulted in a class path of
> > more than 72 characters. Apparently the Manifest spec says this:
> >
> > Name-Value pairs and SectionsBefore we go to the details of the contents
> of
> > the individual configuration files, some format convention needs to be
> > defined. In most cases, information contained within the manifest file
> and
> > signature files is represented as so-called "name: value" pairs inspired
> by
> > the RFC822 standard.  We also call these pairs headers or attributes.
> >
> > Groups of name-value pairs are known as a "section". Sections are
> separated
> > from other sections by empty lines.
> >
> > Binary data of any form is represented as base64. Continuations are
> > required for binary data which causes line length to exceed 72 bytes.
> > Examples of binary data are digests and signatures.
> >
> >
> > Note the max line length is 72 bytes. Maven was cleaver enough to split
> my
> > package name into two lines but apparently Tapestry does not do the right
> > thing and does not load the module. Of course everything works fine
> during
> > development and it's only when you push to production that you find this.
> >
> > It's not completely clear to me the spec really means a 72 character line
> > but it was good enough for the mainframe so I guess it's good enough for
> > Java.
> >
> > Should I file a JIRA for this?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
>
> Creator of Apache Tapestry
>
> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!
>
> (971) 678-5210
> http://howardlewisship.com
>

Reply via email to