On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 if the absence of ASM limits only the indexing of attached *.class files > and does not impact indexing attachments in general. This is the case as testified by our unit tests Thanks -Vincent > > Thanks, > Eduard > > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Marius Dumitru Florea < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 for 1) >> >> Thanks, >> Marius >> >> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> We have a problem ATM since we bundle both ASM 3.1 and 4.0 at the same >> time in XWiki. >>> >>> See http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XE-1269 >>> >>> We have to take some decisions: >>> >>> 1) We say that we don't support indexing .class files in attachments at >> the moment (we open a jira for it so that we don't forget to fix it later >> on) and we open an issue on the tika parser tracker to migrate to ASM 4.X. >> We follow that issue and when they add support for it we upgrade to it. >>> 2) I put back pegdown 1.0.2 (we're on 1.2.1) but that means changing >> code and removing features since they have implemented new features since >> 1.0.2 (they have released 3 versions since then). I don't like this. >>> 3) We modify Tika parser sources so that it works with ASM 4.0 and we >> publish in our maven repo. It's like 1) but we do the work. >>> >>> Personally I think that 3) is too much work for the benefits so I would >> go for 1). >>> >>> WDYT? Any other idea? >>> >>> I'm voting 1 (i.e. ASM 4.0) >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
