> create a branch and start experimenting! :) Forking the Git mirror might be the easiest way to manage these contributions. On Jun 1, 2016 06:35, "Nick Burch" <apa...@gagravarr.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Murphy, Mark wrote: > >> At work I have been using the SS side of POI, and have become fairly >> comfortable with it. I realize that there are some things still that need >> to be done, and some issues with XML Beans that have been discussed, but it >> seems fairly well organized. Recently I have also been working with the WP >> side as well, and it is obviously still a work in progress. >> > > There's not a lot of link between HWPF and XWPF. I tried to put one in, > but the formats have a surprising number of differences in concepts and > approaches, more-so than HSSF/XSSF. Coupled with less XWPF contributions, > and HWPF needing lots of love after the loss of the main developer, and > that's how we end up in the situation today... > > I have found that XWPF does not yet have a clear separation between the >> model and the usermodel. >> > > For anything done by POI committers, it should do. However, we've taken a > lot of community contributions, and many of those steer more towards "get > it done" than "build a full solution perfectly". That's why you see a lot > of "leakages" of the low-level XML stuff. It'd be great to wrap all of that > stuff up! And required for dropping xmlbeans - we need to get everyone off > the CT classes if we want to be able to replace them > > I would like to propose a change to the POI architecture with respect to >> SS, as it already has a well-defined architecture. This change would allow >> us to more easily move away from XML Beans, and potentially reduce memory >> consumption in the XML format space. It seems to me that one of the reasons >> we use XML Beans is that it allows us to update XML documents in place. >> > > On the whole, you can buy/beg/rent more memory, or faster machines. The > resource we really lack in POI is contributors writing code or > documentation or tests. xmlbeans makes development of the X??F stuff > quicker, and that's what we tend to optimise for! > > Unfortunately, XML is a highly inefficient format, and maybe it would be >> better, with respect to memory use, to model documents internally in a more >> efficient format, and at save time convert the document to its binary or >> XML format as necessary. >> > > The binary and XML formats have more differences than you'd ideally expect > or like, which in part is why we don't have more shared stuff between them. > Not saying that this plan wouldn't work, just that it might not be as clean > as you'd like especially for more fiddly stuff like formatting, colours or > the like > > The WP side is a perfect place to try this out since it does not really >> have a well-defined separation between model and usermodel. If I go on any >> more, this thought will totally fall apart, so I will leave this open for >> discussion, and I hope that no one feels that I am stepping on toes. That >> is not my intention. >> > > As long as it doesn't make new contributions to POI harder or slower (we > need more contributions!), and as long as you want to do the work, create a > branch and start experimenting! :) > > Nick > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > >
