poi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dominik Stadler <dominik.stad...@gmx.at>
Subject Re: Preventing corrupt workbooks
Date Tue, 17 May 2016 08:19:36 GMT
Hi,

I prefer immediate validation as it makes it much easier for users to
develop their code as they see quickly where it went wrong. And we do such
checks already in many places, e.g. all the limits of number of
rows/col/... and other sanity checks that are spread throughout the code.
The downsides for checks when writing are quite severe in my opinion.

I think for the "X" formats we already provide non-validating access
methods via the getCT...() low-level API, so I would not bother to much
adding anything else unless there is a good use-case for a non-validating
method.

Dominik.

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Andreas Beeker <kiwiwings@apache.org>
wrote:

> Hi Javen,
>
> this is just a quick response, so you don't think this topic is going
> under ...
>
> I would prefer not to validate the whole file on save - especially as
> there are still a few
> areas where we can say for sure, if a modification corrupt the file - at
> least for HSLF.
>
> Although I can imagine something similar can happen with HSLF too (e.g.
> removal
> of used styles), I would further prefer not to generalize it, i.e. first
> do a breaking
> modification and then hope, that the saving part will find it.
>
> So I would go with option 3 in this case - if a user chooses to use
> non-validating modifications,
> he would also need to test, that the written file is ok ... i.e. keep it
> simple stupid ...
>
> Andi.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@poi.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@poi.apache.org
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message