Thanks Graham and Tim. I hadn't seen that.
On Oct 6, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Graham Triggs wrote:
> That version of tm-extractors is quite old.
>
> There is a newer version on the Google site -
> http://code.google.com/p/text-mining/ - but it will take a bit of work
> wrapping things up for general use.
>
> It has dependencies on newer versions of POI than 0.4, and some distinct
> improvements to it's robustness.
>
> G
>
> On 6 October 2010 16:39, Tim Donohue <tdono...@duraspace.org> wrote:
> Ugh -- sounds like you've entered dependency hell.
>
> Though, I think the one shred of good news here is that it seems to only
> have a dependency conflict in one place in our codebase.
>
> It looks like (at a glance) if our WordFilter can be re-written to no
> longer need the org.textmining project, you *might* be OK (i.e.
> hopefully it wouldn't snowball on you). But, that would require finding
> a Word document text extractor that is as good as (or better than) that
> 'org.textmining' one, and then hoping it doesn't cause another
> dependency conflict. Not sure of any alternative Word text extractors,
> off the top of my head, but maybe others know of one?
>
> - Tim
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports
standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3.
Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great
experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________
DSpace-tech mailing list
DSpace-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech
