Bug 7641 - fix relative versus absolute row numbers
Summary: fix relative versus absolute row numbers
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: POI
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HSSF (show other bugs)
Version: 2.0-dev
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: POI Developers List
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-03-31 08:12 UTC by Andy Oliver
Modified: 2006-07-28 22:37 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Andy Oliver 2002-03-31 08:12:13 UTC 
Excel can actually have some high order number of rows.  We're currently limited
to Short.MAX_VALUE because we don't know how to do relative row numbers.  We
should figure this out at some point.
Comment 1 Avik Sengupta 2002-06-17 09:40:41 UTC 
We do absolute and relative row numbers in formulas. Some work is probably
required in Names as well. What else do u mean here?
Comment 2 Andy Oliver 2002-06-18 18:22:27 UTC 
I believe you can actually have more then UnsignedShort.MAX_VAL rows in excel. 
However the row number is stored as an Unsigned Short in RowRecord.  So there is
some manner Excel uses to identify "relative" row numbers.  This probably
involves the IndexRecord (which we currently don't write because its another
upstream pointer to downstream things).  However that's just a guess.
Comment 3 Jason Height 2006-07-29 05:37:24 UTC 
Nope, excel cant have more than 65K rows. Well excel 12 can but that a whole
different story......

Closing as INVALID.

Jason