Sounds like a much better option and avoids all the duplication that goes
along with a doing port. I can think of the following advantages:
* Single code base so no duplication
* Long term it's hard to keep a C++ and Java port together.
* No splitting of office file format knowledge amongst two projects.
* Potential to attract more developers to Poi.
* Java tends to be easier to maintain.
Nice to see GCJ being able to solve an issue like this.
Would the public API need to be wrapped to be easier to call from C++ or are
you thinking about calling directly using CNI or something?
Regards,
Glen Stampoultzis (TriNexus Pty Ltd)
Fixed:+61 3 9753-6850 Mob:+61 (0)402 835 458
ICQ: 62722370 EMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL's: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi, http://www.krysalis.org
> I posted a little while back on developing C++ port of POI, so that
> KOffice could use POI to develop filters for Excel and Word. It now
> appears that developing a C++ port isn't necessary anymore, because it
> turns out that we can invoke the Java code from C++ using GCJ [1].
>
> There is some discussion on the KOffice mailing list about how they are
> going to implement filters. Currently there are two proposals, the first
> is to use the OpenOffice file format and re-use the OpenOffice filters
> for MS Word, and the second is to use the Apache POI library compiled
> under GCJ.
>
> The advantage of using the existing OpenOffice filters is that they
> are already developed for Word as well as Excel. However, Apache POI
> seems more suitable in the long term, since the quality of the code seems
> to be much higher than the OpenOffice filter code. Does anybody have any
> thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks,
> -TJ [http://maxmind.com]
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcj/Invocation.html
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
