[xwiki-devs] [VOTE] ASM 3.x vs 4.x choice
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
+1 for 1) On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:05 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
-- Thomas Mortagne
FTR I've committed option 1), see: * http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-8657 * http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-8656 Thanks -Vincent On Jan 7, 2013, at 12:05 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
+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
+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
On Jan 7, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Eduard Moraru <[email protected]> wrote:
+1 if the absence of ASM limits only the indexing of attached *.class files and does not impact indexing attachments in general.
This is the case as testified by our unit tests Thanks -Vincent
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
participants (4)
-
Eduard Moraru -
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Thomas Mortagne -
Vincent Massol