Re: [DISCUSS] Getting a fixed version of XMLBeans

[Nick Burch]

On Thu, 9 Nov 2017, Dave Fisher wrote:
e) take XMLBeans out of the attic. Fix the bugs and make maintenance 
releases as 2.7, 2.8, etc. This would be an official version. Probably 
needs a board resolution.


I think it might be enough for the Attic PMC to vote with 3 +1s to 
transfer the responsibilities over to us. Probably best to ask them 
though!


Nick

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Getting a fixed version of XMLBeans

[Javen O'Neal]

Dave Fisher's (e) seems like the best fix to me. Not everyone needs the
XMLBeans fixes, so we shouldn't force it on them in order to update to the
latest version of POI.

Changing the java package name from org.apache.xmlbeans would break
compatibility with XMLBeans 2.3.0 and 2.6.0, as well as any private forks
people maintain that use the org.apache.xmlbeans package namespace.

If the board is open to it, the least effort solution is to commit the
changes to XMLBeans's repo l, make a release, and update the website
without pulling it out of the Attic. If we can't get around the Apache's
policies requiring non-Attic status to commit or release, then we could
pull XMLBeans out of the Attic just long enough to form a PMC, commit,
release, vote, and update website, then put it back into the attic.

I don't see the changes we need to make to XMLBeans as specific to POI--the
same bugs would affect other projects running on Android. We aren't aware
of what those other projects might be. I don't think that's enough reason
to make a POI-specific XMLBeans release or to copy the source tree inside
of POI.

I haven't had any issues using POI with XMLBeans for my applications, so my
opinions probably don't hold as much weight as those who have been affected
by the bugs.

On Nov 9, 2017 15:43, "Andreas Beeker"  wrote:

Hi,

I would prefer c) but keeping the package names and only change the
artifact groupid,
to keep it's proprietary usage for POI. So we don't need to care to build
up a xmlbeans
community again.

I think d) is a longterm goal - to simulate xmlbeans xml infoset
preservation plus
support various ECMA versions plus handling alternate content blocks
correctly
will be a challenge in a brown field context.
Therefore we should first fix xmlbeans.

Andi


On 11/9/17 10:01 PM, Dominik Stadler wrote:

Hi,

the initial discussion showed a few possible routes. I would like to
discuss the options a bit more, probably followed by a vote to see which
option has the majority.

I currently see the following possibilities:

a) Fork XMLBeans with a different name outside of Apache and upload a fixed
version, just like PJ already did, only some more renaming would probably
be necessary

b) Include the source of XMLBeans with POI and release fixes from there

c) As b), but change the code so different package names and jar-names are
used to avoid colliding with the "official" version

d) Do nothing with XMLBeans and invest all the time for replacing XMLBeans
soon

Any thoughts? Other options?

Thanks... Dominik.

Re: [DISCUSS] Getting a fixed version of XMLBeans

[Andreas Beeker]

Hi,

I would prefer c) but keeping the package names and only change the artifact 
groupid,
to keep it's proprietary usage for POI. So we don't need to care to build up a 
xmlbeans
community again.

I think d) is a longterm goal - to simulate xmlbeans xml infoset preservation 
plus
support various ECMA versions plus handling alternate content blocks correctly
will be a challenge in a brown field context.
Therefore we should first fix xmlbeans.

Andi


On 11/9/17 10:01 PM, Dominik Stadler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the initial discussion showed a few possible routes. I would like to
> discuss the options a bit more, probably followed by a vote to see which
> option has the majority.
>
> I currently see the following possibilities:
>
> a) Fork XMLBeans with a different name outside of Apache and upload a fixed
> version, just like PJ already did, only some more renaming would probably
> be necessary
>
> b) Include the source of XMLBeans with POI and release fixes from there
>
> c) As b), but change the code so different package names and jar-names are
> used to avoid colliding with the "official" version
>
> d) Do nothing with XMLBeans and invest all the time for replacing XMLBeans
> soon
>
> Any thoughts? Other options?
>
> Thanks... Dominik.
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [DISCUSS] Getting a fixed version of XMLBeans

[Dave Fisher]

Hi

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 9, 2017, at 1:01 PM, Dominik Stadler  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> the initial discussion showed a few possible routes. I would like to
> discuss the options a bit more, probably followed by a vote to see which
> option has the majority.
> 
> I currently see the following possibilities:
> 
> a) Fork XMLBeans with a different name outside of Apache and upload a fixed
> version, just like PJ already did, only some more renaming would probably
> be necessary
> 
> b) Include the source of XMLBeans with POI and release fixes from there
> 
> c) As b), but change the code so different package names and jar-names are
> used to avoid colliding with the "official" version
> 
> d) Do nothing with XMLBeans and invest all the time for replacing XMLBeans
> soon

e) take XMLBeans out of the attic. Fix the bugs and make maintenance releases 
as 2.7, 2.8, etc. This would be an official version. Probably needs a board 
resolution.

> 
> Any thoughts? Other options?
> 
> Thanks... Dominik.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org

[DISCUSS] Getting a fixed version of XMLBeans

[Dominik Stadler]

Hi,

the initial discussion showed a few possible routes. I would like to
discuss the options a bit more, probably followed by a vote to see which
option has the majority.

I currently see the following possibilities:

a) Fork XMLBeans with a different name outside of Apache and upload a fixed
version, just like PJ already did, only some more renaming would probably
be necessary

b) Include the source of XMLBeans with POI and release fixes from there

c) As b), but change the code so different package names and jar-names are
used to avoid colliding with the "official" version

d) Do nothing with XMLBeans and invest all the time for replacing XMLBeans
soon

Any thoughts? Other options?

Thanks... Dominik.

Re: Non-maintainer upload of bugfixes for the XMLBeans library in the Attic

[Dominik Stadler]

Ok,

thanks for the suggestions/discussion, I take it there is no clear showcase
where something like this happened before. I think we will discuss
internally some more and step up to the board with a proposal of how we
want to continue.

Thanks... Dominik


On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 8:55 PM, cedric walter 
wrote:

> I would be ready to help phasing XMLBean out, in favor of JAXB (i use it
> since 2002) or else. While is sound scary (and it may be), why not doing a
> spike first?
>
> Regards,
> Cédric Walter
>
> 
> Find me on the Web
> 
>
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Upayavira  wrote:
>
> > Could POI take on XMLbeans as a second product? If they intend to
> > maintain it, and can provide 3+ PMC members who will vote on releases,
> > then presumably the POI project could make releases of the Apache
> > XMLBeans product?
> >
> > Then there's no naming issues, everyone benefits from public releases.
> > At such a point as there is enough interest, it can fork back into its
> > own community. POI committers would gain commit rights on an XMLBeans
> > repo.
> >
> > Upayavira
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, at 04:59 PM, Javen O'Neal wrote:
> > > Any other project using XMLBeans on Android would likely be affected by
> > > the
> > > same issue. Making the XMLBeans update within the POI source code or
> POI
> > > maven coordinates would make it more difficult for others to find this
> > > update.
> > >
> > > If we had to change the Java package name to
> > > org.apache.poi.internal.xmlbeans, it would take a bit of trickery to
> > > allow
> > > users to continue using the official releases, XMLBeans 2.3.0 or 2.6.0
> if
> > > the bug doesn't affect them.
> > >
> > > On Nov 7, 2017 03:41, "sebb"  wrote:
> > >
> > > On 7 November 2017 at 07:20, jan iversen 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > > >> On 6 Nov 2017, at 21:47, Dominik Stadler 
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> The Apache XMLBeans library was moved to the Attic a few years ago
> > > >> (05/2014), however Apache POI still uses the library as it's core
> XML
> > > >> binding framework.
> > > >>
> > > >> While the Apache POI PMC and the development community is already
> > > >> discussing possible replacements for some time, use of XMLBeans is
> > still
> > > >> deeply rooted and thus hard to replace quickly.
> > > >>
> > > >> Over time, we discovered a few grave bugs in XMLBeans which lead to
> > > >> bug-reports that we cannot fix ourselves.
> > > >>
> > > >> Therefore we would like to start discussion about an NMU of XMLBeans
> > to
> > > get
> > > >> a fix for the most pressing issues.
> > > >>
> > > >> See https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59268 for the
> full
> > > >> discussion,and https://github.com/pjfanning/xmlbeans for a fork
> with
> > > >> initial bugfixes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Among others, we would like to fix the following, changes for these
> > are
> > > >> already applied and verified in the github fork:
> > > >> * the official XMLBeans-JAR contains duplicate classes, making it
> > > >> impossible to use it on Android as the Android build fails due to
> this
> > > >> * cannot use Unicode surogates, thus affecting use of Apache POI in
> > > >> non-latin-script areas
> > > >> * Remove W3C and JAVAX classes which are not needed any more since
> > Java 6
> > > >> (current Apache POI development is on Java 8)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> So is there a precedent for something like this? What steps do we
> > need to
> > > >> make to get an updated version of XMLBeans published?
> > > >
> > > > Others might have examples of how it was done in the past. Making a
> > fork
> > > on e.g. github with a new non-apache name is the simplest way.
> > > >
> > > > However if I understand it correct your intention is only to maintain
> > > XMLbeans for the benefit of POI. That gives you (as I see it) another
> > > option, you can include the source code in your project and do the
> > > patches
> > > as part of your project.
> > >
> > > I think it would need to be in a different package to avoid possible
> > > confusion with the original.
> > > And it should be obvious that it is not intended for external use.
> > >
> > > e.g. org.apache.poi.internal.xmlbeans
> > >
> > > > rgds
> > > > jan i
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks... Dominik
> > > >>
> > > >> On behalf of the Apache POI PMC
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> About Apache POI
> > > >> ---
> > > >>
> > > >> Apache POI is well-known in the Java field as a library for reading
> > and
> > > >> writing Microsoft Office file formats, such as Excel, PowerPoint,
> > Word,
> > > >> Visio, Publisher and Outlook. It supports both the older (OLE2) and
> > > >> new (OOXML - Office Open XML) formats.
> > > >>
> > > >> See https://poi.apache.org/ for more details
> > >
> > > 

[Bug 61638] Incorrect result from DataFormatter.formatCellValue for format 60#########

[bugzilla]

https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61638

--- Comment #3 from Wai Chun  ---
One situation worth noting though, ### is not always the same as 000.

for example, for an input of 12345678

if the format is 600, output will be 60012345678.
if the format is 60#, output will be 6012345678.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org