Total dependency size is important to my deployment, and probably others. I don't use SXSSF at all, and would not need/want the dependency (which I've never heard of in 20 years of database and Java development, which is strange to me, but irrelevant). My preference is to make it optional, even though it's more work to code. Default would be the current behavior, which works for almost everyone, apparently, and an option would be to enable this behavior and manage the package availability externally.
I suppose one could manually exclude the package as well, if SXSSF isn't used at all, since Java wouldn't try to load the classes unless a class referencing them was loaded, but that behavior is always subject to change and should not be relied upon. Plus I wouldn't want to impose that on existing users who don't need/want it. On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 4:47 AM pj.fanning <fannin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I could make h2 a `provided` dependency in our poi-ooxml pom. > The use of h2 is opt-in in the new code in my PR but I'll need to refactor > the code to allow our code not to throw ClassNotFoundException if the h2 > classes are not on the runtime classpath. This is do-able but my concern is > that this is difficult to automate tests for (checking the code works when > the h2 jar is available and when it is not). > > https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.h2database/h2 is very common > dependency, so my preference would be to have the explicit dependency from > poi-ooxml on h2 - but I'll go with whatever the consensus is. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-poi.1045710.n5.nabble.com/POI-Dev-f2312866.html > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > >
