Mark, It's nothing to do with 2.0 except that the use of neko happens in there.
I have a lot of very unhappy experience with neko, over several years. I remove it wherever I go. If you look at WAGON-338, you will see what I ran into. I'm coding faster than you are emailing! So I've already committed the jsoup changes to trunk. I'd ask you to humor me; jsoup is really better. Instead a strange attempt to treat HTML as XML and use the insides of Xerces, it just parses HTML and tolerates a much wider range of phenomena. I'll try the latest neko before I commit to 1.x. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Benson! > > A general note on wagon-2.0: > > Are you sure that this is related with wagaon-http-shared4? > I fairly recently upgraded wagon from commons-httpclient-3 to > httpcomponents-httpclient-4 (thus the name 4). But this is not released yet! > > Please note that wagon-2.0 is a pretty huge rework, which includes upgrading > to jave5, junit-4.8, a much newer plexus, and a lot more. Means we still have > a bit testing todo ;) > Good thing is that we have pretty good unit and integration test coverage > already. > > > Back to nekohtml: what kind of bug is it? > The code this area hasn't changed much between the latest wagon release. Imo > nekohtml is only used for retrieving the file list (HtmlFileListParser). Any > workaround possible? > > From a look at the nekohtml page [1], it seems that the latest jar did not > get uploaded to maven.central. Could you please try with the latest and ping > us if it works? > > txs and LieGrue, > strub > > > [1] http://nekohtml.sourceforge.net/changes.html > --- On Tue, 7/5/11, Benson Margulies <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Benson Margulies <[email protected]> >> Subject: How are wagon-providers released? >> To: "Maven Developers List" <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2011, 3:49 PM >> I just ran smack into a bug in >> wagon-maven-plugin which is really a >> bug in wagon-http-lightweight which is really a bug in >> wagon-http-shared4 which is really a bug in cyberneko. >> >> I can fix this by upgrading the later to use jsoup instead >> of cyberneko. >> >> Then what? It looks like all of the providers travel in a >> pack. If I >> stated a vote for the next version of the providers (would >> it be 2.0 >> or another beta???) would it be safe to release, or would >> we be frozen >> for fear of incompatibility? Should all these travel in a >> pack? >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
