You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@poi.apache.org by ce...@apache.org on 2015/05/27 22:38:01 UTC
svn commit: r1682117 -
/poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
Author: centic
Date: Wed May 27 20:38:01 2015
New Revision: 1682117
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1682117
Log:
adjust instructions for XWPF to note that scratchpad-jar is needed as well
Modified:
poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
Modified: poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml?rev=1682117&r1=1682116&r2=1682117&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml (original)
+++ poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml Wed May 27 20:38:01 2015
@@ -50,9 +50,10 @@
to fix such things are generally very well received!</p>
<p>As detailed in the <link href="/overview.html#components">Components
- Page</link>, HWPF is contained within the Scratchpad jar, while XWPF
- is in the OOXML jar. You will need to ensure you include the appropriate
- jars (and their dependencies!) in your classpath to use HWPF or XWPF.</p>
+ Page</link>, HWPF is contained within the poi-scratchpad-XXX.jar, while XWPF
+ is in the OOXML jar, but also requires the poi-scratchpad-XXX.jar. You will need
+ to ensure you include the appropriate jars (and their dependencies!) in your
+ classpath to use HWPF or XWPF.</p>
</section>
<section>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@poi.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1682117 -
/poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
Posted by kiwiwings <ki...@apache.org>.
Nick Burch-2 wrote
> It certainly used to be the case that some users didn't want the X##F
> family of documents, and didn't want larger extra dependencies that they
> needed, so they liked us keeping the split. With the "special" way that
> Android does things like javax.xml, I believe that this could still be the
> case for at least some of our users
In the common_sl, I've started to use JAXB for parsing the predefined
geometry files. I guess - in the not so far future - the replacement of
xmlbeans by JAXB is another change, I'd like to introduce.
And having a component splitting, this change could be limited to (H/)XSLF
for a start.
This would probably reduce the schema-files and the format specific
classes would go into the component jar instead of the poi-ooxml -
of course there will ooxml binding classes which would be necessary
for all X##F components and the common poi-ooxml won't vanish.
Andi
--
View this message in context: http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r1682117-poi-site-src-documentation-content-xdocs-document-index-xml-tp5718914p5718928.html
Sent from the POI - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1682117 -
/poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
Posted by Nick Burch <ap...@gagravarr.org>.
On Thu, 28 May 2015, Andreas Beeker wrote:
> In the context of the jackcess-discussion, I'd even more prefer, if we
> split those components to separate jars having the X/H??F classes
> together.
It certainly used to be the case that some users didn't want the X##F
family of documents, and didn't want larger extra dependencies that they
needed, so they liked us keeping the split. With the "special" way that
Android does things like javax.xml, I believe that this could still be the
case for at least some of our users
I'm not saying we couldn't make that sort of change, just that we need to
be aware that historically that style of change was rejected based on
then-users feedback
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1682117 - /poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
Posted by Dominik Stadler <do...@gmx.at>.
Yes, it's not good, but at least for 3.12 it seems to be the case, I
just found out the day before when I tried to use XWPFDocument myself.
BTW, it was introduced via commit "Stub a common WP paragraph class,
needs uncommenting as XWPF implements/emulates", r1657712 in February,
we likely can just move the one class into main to be fine again.
I have entered https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57963 to
not forget about the documentation side when this is done.
Dominik.
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Ideally we should have the core classes/interfaces in the main jar, so that the ooxml classes can work without scratchpad. I'd say it's fine for scratchpad to depend on core, ooxml to depend on core, not sure about ooxml (nominally stable) depending on scratchpad (nominally not)
>>
>> What does everyone else think?
>
> I haven't checked the background of what xwpf depends on in scratchpad, but if it's not a big chunk of classes, I'd prefer to move those to main.
> In the context of the jackcess-discussion, I'd even more prefer, if we split those components to separate jars having the X/H??F classes together.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1682117 -
/poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
Posted by Andreas Beeker <ki...@apache.org>.
> Ideally we should have the core classes/interfaces in the main jar, so that the ooxml classes can work without scratchpad. I'd say it's fine for scratchpad to depend on core, ooxml to depend on core, not sure about ooxml (nominally stable) depending on scratchpad (nominally not)
>
> What does everyone else think?
I haven't checked the background of what xwpf depends on in scratchpad, but if it's not a big chunk of classes, I'd prefer to move those to main.
In the context of the jackcess-discussion, I'd even more prefer, if we split those components to separate jars having the X/H??F classes together.
Andi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
Re: svn commit: r1682117 -
/poi/site/src/documentation/content/xdocs/document/index.xml
Posted by Nick Burch <ap...@gagravarr.org>.
On Wed, 27 May 2015, centic@apache.org wrote:
> adjust instructions for XWPF to note that scratchpad-jar is needed as well
Should that be the case though?
Ideally we should have the core classes/interfaces in the main jar, so
that the ooxml classes can work without scratchpad. I'd say it's fine for
scratchpad to depend on core, ooxml to depend on core, not sure about
ooxml (nominally stable) depending on scratchpad (nominally not)
What does everyone else think?
Nick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org