You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@poi.apache.org by Glen Stampoultzis <gs...@iinet.net.au> on 2003/11/09 03:59:50 UTC
POI-FS 2
Hey guys.
Chris Nokleberg has been working with me in testing POIFS2. I've been a
bit slow in evaluating it so I apologise to everyone for making them wait.
I can report that the library works (under HEAD) and actually provides a
slight increase in speed when running through ours tests.
Now I'd like to get opinions from you guys on whether we should go ahead
and commit this code (with Chris's permission).
Regards,
Glen Stampoultzis
glens@apache.org
Re: POI-FS 2
Posted by Chris Nokleberg <ch...@sixlegs.com>.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 06:00:21PM +0530, Avik Sengupta wrote:
> I would suggest that SHOULD be two constructors if POIFS2 mandates 1.4
> due to its use of NIO.
It does not, NIO support is optional (and does not affect the
constructor signature).
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: POI-FS 2
Posted by Avik Sengupta <av...@apache.org>.
I would suggest that SHOULD be two constructors if POIFS2 mandates 1.4
due to its use of NIO.
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 03:43, Chris Nokleberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:49:24AM +1100, Glen Stampoultzis wrote:
> > Ideally (just to begin with) it would be great if it were possible to swap
> > implementations at runtime. Chris, would this be possible? Going forward
> > though it would be silly to maintain two separate implementations and one
> > must eventually win out.
>
> I don't think there is a technical obstacle to having, for example,
> multiple constructors in HSSFWorkbook that work with both POIFS impls,
> although I agree it is a bit silly. Whatever bugs remain won't be found
> until people actually use it.
>
> Chris
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: POI-FS 2
Posted by Chris Nokleberg <ch...@sixlegs.com>.
On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 08:49:24AM +1100, Glen Stampoultzis wrote:
> Ideally (just to begin with) it would be great if it were possible to swap
> implementations at runtime. Chris, would this be possible? Going forward
> though it would be silly to maintain two separate implementations and one
> must eventually win out.
I don't think there is a technical obstacle to having, for example,
multiple constructors in HSSFWorkbook that work with both POIFS impls,
although I agree it is a bit silly. Whatever bugs remain won't be found
until people actually use it.
Chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: POI-FS 2
Posted by Glen Stampoultzis <gs...@iinet.net.au>.
From what I can see it hasn't broken any of the tests. That doesn't mean
there is nothing broken but it gives at least some degree of confidence.
The way I see it is that we need at least once place where we can be a bit
aggressive. If HEAD isn't that place now when will it be?
Ideally (just to begin with) it would be great if it were possible to swap
implementations at runtime. Chris, would this be possible? Going forward
though it would be silly to maintain two separate implementations and one
must eventually win out.
Regards,
Glen
At 10:20 AM 10/11/2003, you wrote:
>My biggest concern on this, at the moment, would be its interaction with
>performace-branch merge on HEAD.. that is, given that HEAD isnt stable
>yet, and
>needs a lot of bugfixing, will we able to debug if another element is added in
>now... this is just a thought, i dont know the answer yet!
>
>Regards
>-
>Avik
Glen Stampoultzis
gstamp@iinet.net.au
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gstamp/glen/
Re: POI-FS 2
Posted by av...@itellix.com.
My biggest concern on this, at the moment, would be its interaction with
performace-branch merge on HEAD.. that is, given that HEAD isnt stable yet, and
needs a lot of bugfixing, will we able to debug if another element is added in
now... this is just a thought, i dont know the answer yet!
Regards
-
Avik
Quoting Glen Stampoultzis <gs...@iinet.net.au>:
>
> Hey guys.
>
> Chris Nokleberg has been working with me in testing POIFS2. I've been a
> bit slow in evaluating it so I apologise to everyone for making them wait.
>
>
> I can report that the library works (under HEAD) and actually provides a
> slight increase in speed when running through ours tests.
>
> Now I'd like to get opinions from you guys on whether we should go ahead
> and commit this code (with Chris's permission).
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Glen Stampoultzis
> glens@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: poi-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: poi-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org