Do you use the stuff in the wp package, or was that simply experimentation?
-----Original Message----- From: Javen O'Neal [mailto:javenon...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 10:13 AM To: POI Developers List Subject: Re: Musings on POI Architecture > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org
