+1 if the absence of ASM limits only the indexing of attached *.class files and does not impact indexing attachments in general.
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 > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
