https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57834

first part of https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57834 -
allbutlast to follow

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43271

Apparently the remote umask still comes into play and the result won't
be exactly what we intended it to be.

Based on patch by Holly Cummins

Port of fixes for https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-314 and
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-315

since we read resources from it, the JVM won't close it and subsequent tests
can not remove ${output} - making them fail on Windows.

1024 byte buffer size is insufficient for transfering large files over faster (> 100Mbit) networks. We are transfering files tens or hundreds MB in size and transfer speed was 1MB/s. After increasing the buffer size too 100KB we are getting transfer speeds up to 60MB/s. Please consider increasing the BUFFER_SIZE in the next Ant release. Thanks, Peter

1024 byte buffer size is insufficient for transfering large files over faster (> 100Mbit) networks. We are transfering files tens or hundreds MB in size and transfer speed was 1MB/s. After increasing the buffer size too 100KB we are getting transfer speeds up to 60MB/s. Please consider increasing the BUFFER_SIZE in the next Ant release. Thanks, Peter

This is a workaround for Bugzilla Issue 57822
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57822

Submitted by Roman Savko
PR: 57789

Bugzilla Issue 57588

or so they say

https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55074

Patch by Christian Schmidt

Fixes bugzilla issues 57542 and 51931

Bugzilla Report 57533

Port of https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMPRESS-297

Submitted by: Ryan Bennitt
Bugzilla: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341

Bugzilla Report 57371
Submitted by Christian Schmidt

This patch creates the nested XSLTProcess at creation of the
AggregateTransformer, not upon execution of the transformation.  This way it
is much easier to simply wrap parts of the interface I'd like to expose,
like the new <classpath> and <factory> nested elements, but also the
existing <param> elements.

I haven't called XSLTProcess.init(), as the previous code didn't do that
either.  I don't fully understand the difference between init() and a
constructor, but it might be a good thing to init the task somewhere.

The approach I chose is something like a whitelist delegation: the
XSLTProcess is a private member, and only selected methods of its interface
are wrapped and thus exposed to be configured.  As an alternative, one could
do something like a blacklist delegation by deriving a class from
XSLTProcess and forbidding access to certain settings by ovverriding the
corresponding methods and throwing exceptions therein.  In that case, one
might even turn the class derived from XSLTProcess into a nested <xslt>
element, which would be probably much clearer, as it would be configured in
the same way that a top-level <xslt> task is.  I didn't choose this approach
in my patch for now.