Hi Andi, Y, to be clear, I really like what you’ve done and it is all a bunch cleaner than my earlier stuff; I wasn’t at all questioning the design. The question was more to back compat. There was quite a bit of red when I made the upgrade and before I modernized our code on Tika.
As long as we’re all on board, off we go! As to my two recent commits, please let me know if there are better options for 4.1.1. Thank you! Cheers, Tim On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 4:55 PM Andreas Beeker <kiwiwi...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Tim, > > I've made that changes on purpose, as I wanted to make the EMF API similar > to the WMF one. > > > oap.hemf.extractor.HemfExtractor -> oap.hemf.usermodel.HemfPicture > All (?) our user models are called by their content and being similar to > WMF, I had to rename the class. > > > HwmfRecord.getRecordType() -> getWmfRecordType() > The EMF records extends the WMF records, so this makes it more clear what > kind of record type to ask for. > > > oap.hemf.record.AbstractHemfComment -> oap.hemf.record.hemf.Comment > > oap.hemf.record.HemfRecord -> oap.h.r.emf.HemfRecord > > > As both sets (emf and emfplus) contain quite a few records, I've decided > to split their packages. > > I'm now looking at the other (not yet resolved) issues you opened. > > Andi > > >
