Hi Tim, > So, upon further thought, we propose not integrating Jackcess with POI for > now, but we do propose adding links from each other's websites to the other > so that users of POI will learn about Jackcess and vice versa. > > > How does this sound?
I don't mind having links to Jackcess in POI - so +1 from me. Imho, it's a pity that they've decided otherwise. I totally respect their decision and I probably would have also other points not to join, e.g. if I would program for OSS @ work, my main reason not to join would be, that the namespace is a kind of figurehead for my employer. > I'd like to share the points from our conversation to elicit public feedback. Not sure if it makes sense to argue, but here are my two cents: > 2) We'd have to redesign the maven build process to ant for Jackcess (not > hard, I know). Actually I think this would be the most effort for the beginning. > 1) From a use standpoint, current users of Jackcess would have to migrate > their code (if we changed the namespace) So the users would have to press ctrl+shift-o in the Eclipse package explorer? > 4) Further, Jackcess would be tied to POI's release schedule. Currently we have betas every 2-4 months, depending on the amount of changes. I think this is reasonable. > 3) From an integration standpoint ... ACK. > 5) ... there is no decrease in learning cost simply because of a change in > namespace. Just because it's not an advantage, this is not automatically a disadvantage of joining poi. Best wishes, Andi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
