ree with Nick. I'm slightly inclined to not using Commons IO to
> > avoid potential conflicts, but I defer to the more active devs :).
> >
> > We can't do the equivalent of a maven-shade-plugin in Ant, can we? Looks
> > like maybe in gradle...but...
> >
> >
> >
evelopers List <dev@poi.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Using Apache Commons IO
>
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Javen O'Neal wrote:
> > In the spirit of "the best code is no code", how would you feel about
> > replacing our endian classes and IOUtils with Apache Com
[mailto:apa...@gagravarr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:35 PM
To: POI Developers List <dev@poi.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Using Apache Commons IO
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Javen O'Neal wrote:
> In the spirit of "the best code is no code", how would you feel about
> replac
I always wonder why a lot of these oldies stick with POI 3.9 and based on your
explanation there wouldn't be much reason not to use 3.10 as there weren't much
breaking changes ... if any.
So it must be something else ... I start to believe - especially when dealing
with a few stackoverflow
e semantic versioning rules. I think this would help the user
community, and even projects with dependencies to POI.
-Original Message-
From: Nick Burch [mailto:apa...@gagravarr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:35 PM
To: POI Developers List <dev@poi.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Using A
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017, Javen O'Neal wrote:
In the spirit of "the best code is no code", how would you feel about
replacing our endian classes and IOUtils with Apache Commons IO?
The downside is that it adds a dependency.
https://poi.apache.org/overview.html#components
How many classes do we
