Thanks SS,
I think I wait for the template on Source forge.
By
Giuseppe
___
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail:
http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Hello,
to the SVN. If you don't have write access currently but would like to
get it, now would be a good time to speak up.
in that case I would like to speak up ;-) I was already busy making some
changes to the WFS-Plugin (fixed the Schema issue). So if nobody has
SS,
OK, sign me up for write access too. Since our SkyJUMP work is
mostly complete, I'll try to find some time at home to port over some
of our more popular improvements.
regards,
Larry Becker
On 6/12/07, Andreas Schmitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sunburned Surveyor wrote:
Hello,
to the
I don't think anyone will have a problem giving Larry or Andreas write
access to the SVN repository. If there are no objections I will take
care of this when I set up the SVN. (I'm hoping I can take care of
this today after work.)
SS
On 6/12/07, Michaël Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey,
Hi,
Does anybody know how windows users are supposed to patch those kind of
diff files ?
I only find one java lib claiming to do that (jpatchlib), but
development is ongoing and it is not yet very user friendly (no gui, no
jar, no build, only .java) ?
Michaël
Paul
for me you posts get even more complicated. ;)
but what i like to say is (although i don't want to weak up sleeping
dogs), that i don't realy see a point against a name for a feature
collection if it is not a compulsory property that must be set.
At least i don't see how it could harm the
btw. Sunburned..
don't forget to give yourself write access to the SVN (apart from Steve,
your the only one who does not have yet ;)
I have added Larry to the developer list and Andreas still needs to
provide his name.
stefan
Sunburned Surveyor schrieb:
I don't think anyone will have a
I must weigh in with Paul on this one guys. I see a lot of potential
uses for uniquely identifying FeatureSchemas. I guess that I would
call this a FeatureType. If you are curious about the applications of
defining and uniquely identifying FeatureTypes just take a look at the
ESRI Geodatabase.
Roger that Stefan. Did you already take care of the SVN set-up? If you
have, that is great!
SS
On 6/12/07, Stefan Steiniger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw. Sunburned..
don't forget to give yourself write access to the SVN (apart from Steve,
your the only one who does not have yet ;)
I have
I would disagree on the point about not allowing two layers with the
same name in a Project. Consider the case where you load in two
Multi-Layer files for different mapsheets, each one of them may have a
road layer. I would make the restriction that within a category you
can't have two layers with
mhm.. i dont realy understand
are we talking about a featureType or a FeatureSchema-Name.
The first is (as far as i remember) used by Pirol.. if somebody wants to
have a look on it.. for images, trianguations or so? .. see
PirolFeatureCollectionRoleTypes.java
I found the idea quite useful. But
Sunburned Surveyor schrieb:
Roger that Stefan. Did you already take care of the SVN set-up? If you
have, that is great!
nope..
because this requires some reading
SS
On 6/12/07, Stefan Steiniger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
btw. Sunburned..
don't forget to give yourself write access to
So how do you disambiguate these layers in plugin dropdowns which show
layer names?
Paul Austin wrote:
I would disagree on the point about not allowing two layers with the
same name in a Project. Consider the case where you load in two
Multi-Layer files for different mapsheets, each one of
FeatureType seems like a good name for this.
It does seem like this could be added without too much risk right now,
with very little semantics or functionality around it (other than what
Paul is presumably building).
I guess if there's a real need for this functionality it will become
I've been thinking about this, and now I am really confused!
I think I can summarize my confusion by saying this:
I don't think we will need to introduce a uniquely identified
FeatureSchema and/or a FeatureType if we introduce a restriction for
unique Layers. (Or at least a way to associate a
Martin wrote: They certainly follow
the relational paradigm pretty closely, which will make Landon happy
8^) Me too, actually - I don't have anything against the relational
paradigm, and it's certainly a lot more battle-hardened than the object
DBMS world.
It's not that I am a fan of the
16 matches
Mail list logo
