The runtime JARs for Commons Math are 2.2MB, the rest of the release package is source and docs. If users really need the minimum required packaging, they can use something like Maven Shade [1].
I like the idea of running tests without this dependency and just skipping tests that need it. Perhaps we could use an annotation to identify tests to skip in a particular run, so we don't need to maintain a master list? 1. https://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-shade-plugin/ On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 11:20 AM Javen O'Neal <javenon...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to Apache Commons Math. > > Can we write tests to verify that this dependency is only needed for > certain packages? I hope I'm wrong, but 20 MB is large enough that some > people may not want to update to newer versions of POI. > > On Jul 26, 2017 10:28 AM, "Greg Woolsey" <greg.wool...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > We aren't averse to dependency changes, we did one in the past year. My > > personal preference is the Commons Math library, as it is also an Apache > > project and more importantly still under active development. JAMA > appears > > dead, and calls itself a straw-man implementation. > > > > We could note that if a user doesn't need Excel matrix function > evaluation > > they would not need to include that library at run time. Until we start > > using the Commons Math functionality for more stuff :) > > > > Actually, there are likely statistical functions we could implement using > > it as well, among others. > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 9:18 AM Robert Hulbert <bob951...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Following up, there are two external Matrix Libraries that I am > familiar > > > with (JAMA and Commons.Math3.Linear). Both of these libraries provide > all > > > the functionality necessary to emulate the Excel Matrix functionality. > > The > > > Linear library is 2MB and JAMA is ~20KB. I understand this would be > > adding > > > a dependency to the project. Is there a preference on which library > would > > > be used or is the preferred solution to implement the functionality > > > directly in POI? > > > > > > On 2017-06-27 15:51 (-0700), "Javen O'Neal" <one...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Greg Woolsey has provided quite a few improvements on Table support > for > > > > XSSF recently (last 6-12 months). > > > > > > > > Question to the devs: Are tables part of the XLS binary file format, > > and > > > if > > > > so are users interested in a common SS Table interface? > > > > > > > > Question to Robert: Is LLNL particularly interested in using POI to > > read > > > > and write workbooks containing tables and matrix (table or array?) > > > > functions? Or were they more interested in having an intern help out > on > > > an > > > > open source project and table support was one idea they had? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 27, 2017 1:01 PM, "Hulbert, Robert Douglas" < > hulbe...@llnl.gov> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm a summer student at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and > was > > > > hired to find or implement POI's table formulas and matrix functions. > > > > > > > > Over the last week or so, I have checked the POI page/Contributor > > > > guidelines and have looked through the source code for handling this > > > > functionality. > > > > > > > > Is anyone still interested in this functionality? If not, is there > any > > > > documentation on where this aspect left off? > > > > > > > > Thank you so much for any help you can give! > > > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Robert Hulbert > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@poi.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@poi.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
