Re: Shade MX* classes from plexus-utils?
It sounds like a fine idea to me. Not sure what else to say. -john On Mar 28, 2008, at 7:11 AM, Benjamin Bentmann wrote: If I don't miss an aspect, we could narrow the exclusions for the shade plugin to org.codehaus.plexus.util.xml.pull.Xml* to allow plugins to benefit from updates to the MXParser and MXSerializer independently of Maven. What do you think? No thoughts on this? Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- John Casey Committer and PMC Member, Apache Maven mail: jdcasey at commonjava dot org blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/john rss: http://feeds.feedburner.com/ejlife/john
Re: Shade MX* classes from plexus-utils?
If I don't miss an aspect, we could narrow the exclusions for the shade plugin to org.codehaus.plexus.util.xml.pull.Xml* to allow plugins to benefit from updates to the MXParser and MXSerializer independently of Maven. What do you think? No thoughts on this? Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shade MX* classes from plexus-utils?
Hi, today I learned that plexus-utils is not fully shaded in the core (MNG-2898, r522313). While I can understand the requirement to share Xpp3Dom and the Xml* APIs, I wonder why the MX* implementation classes cannot be shaded. These aren't part of any public method signatures shared with plugins, aren't they? If I don't miss an aspect, we could narrow the exclusions for the shade plugin to org.codehaus.plexus.util.xml.pull.Xml* to allow plugins to benefit from updates to the MXParser and MXSerializer independently of Maven. What do you think? Benjamin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
