-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
> I think you are referring to one of the other patches that was > submitted, not what I committed to the MNG-624 branch. MNG-624 or maven-2.1.x-MNG-624 ? >> >> >> A big problem could be the encoding issue if you store XML in a string >> and then want to save it with some Writer, you need to know the encoding >> from the XML-header or you run into trouble. > > My fix didn't store the XML in a string, it modified the DOM. OK. But the existing parsing is done by XPP right? Do we want parsing the POMs twice with different parsers? Is there some general strategy decision about POM-transformation design by the core developers of maven? Do Brett and Jason care about this? Sorry for the stupid question, but your patch/branch seems to be the second solution so this means to me that the first has failed already. I now see that is was Eric Brown who wasted his time already and he seemed somewhat disappointed. As the problem of doing a POM-transformation which is NOT only relevant for MNG-624 is quite general. So I just want to avoid that the second approach will fail again. I would not mind to invest some of my very little time as well in this but only if there is a clear chance that we are going towards a solution that fits well into the architecture of maven and will therefore be accepted to be integrated in 2.1.x. > > Ralph Regards Jörg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoNzB8ACgkQmPuec2Dcv/8d0wCfcKw58DuETsqdU8vZfHPJEZ66 vXIAn3QzreDl/1scgqpAPlDMu62OP4Ku =xUpi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
