The reason I don't think io needs to be shaded is because io was never actually shaded. Lang was being shaded into io, which can't possibly be right.
> <relocation> > - > <pattern>org.apache.commons.lang</pattern> > + <pattern>org.apache.commons.io</pattern> > > <shadedPattern>org.apache.commons.io.xwork</shadedPattern> > </relocation> I've been running a patched version of Struts 2.2.1 without shading either asm or io for months now. That's why I asked if I should just remove the shading, to reduce the jar size. John On 1/31/11 8:40 PM, "Maurizio Cucchiara" <maurizio.cucchi...@gmail.com> wrote: John, I didn't follow the asm's matter, but as I said a couple of days ago [1] struts-core already depends on commons-io library (actually is a fileupload's dependency), so there cannot be a struts application without common-io library along its path. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WW-3549 On 30 January 2011 20:30, John Lindal <lind...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > In regards to this ticket: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/XW-388 > > Nothing in the entire Struts2 code base references either > org.apache.commons.io.xwork or org.objectweb.asm.xwork. I assume these > relocations were intended to be for internal use only? If so, we could > significantly reduce the size of the XWork jar by removing these relocations > from the pom.xml. > > Any objections? > > Thanks, > John > -- Maurizio Cucchiara --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@struts.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@struts.apache.org
