Re: [xwiki-devs] [VOTE] ASM 3.x vs 4.x choice

+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 < mariusdumitru.florea(a)xwiki.com&gt; wrote: > +1 for 1) > > Thanks, > Marius > > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Vincent Massol &lt;vincent(a)massol.net&gt; 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