After test-removing/renaming the classes, I'm also +1 for unifying to POIFS. The current version still contains so many (bloat/) not anymore necessary classes and its actually fun, to remove one after another and it still works :) ... of course I try to rewrite the tests where it makes sense.
Andi On 8/28/18 12:09 AM, Greg Woolsey wrote: > 3->4 is already a big upgrade, with lots of other API changes (all the > Enums, for example). I think the direct use of NPOIFS will be small, and > one more easy renaming migration step isn't that bad. I'd rather not keep > even deprecated classes around longer than necessary. > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 2:58 AM pj.fanning <fannin...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I'd prefer if we rename the NPOIFS classes to POIFS but also keep >> deprecated >> NPOIFS subclasses to reduce the impact on users who will be upgrading from >> POI 3 to 4. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
