++1 On 12/6/12 7:35 AM, "Joe White" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi, Martin, >Thanks for the information. Armed with that, I say we use the OUoM >interface, and port the JSR implementation to it as an initial >implementation, if it's ok with everyone else. > >Joe >On Dec 6, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Martin Desruisseaux ><[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Joe >> >> Le 06/12/12 22:58, Joe White a écrit : >>> is there a movement afoot to put a new standard in place for units >>>handling? The tone of your reply leads me to believe that there isn't >>>anything particularly imminent, and my own (admittedly paltry) research >>>leads me back to the same choice you posed in the original email on >>>this thread. >> >> My current understanding is that they will be no more JSR dedicated to >>units. However since units is used in many fields, I think it was just a >>matter of time before some JSR got a need for units of measurement. It >>seems to be the case for a JSR about sensors which may start in 2013. So >>a units API may be defined as a side effect of such sensor JSR. However >>if this thing happen, I don't know if it would be possible to extract >>the units API out of the sensor API as an independent module, and if it >>would be generic enough. >> >> >>> what do you see as the trade-offs between a JSR 275 style interface >>>and that of org.unitsofmeasurement? >> >> The API is close to identical. But JSR-275 was implementation classes, >>while org.unitsofmeasurement defines only interfaces. Apart from that, >>the main difference is the change in package name. This is a trivial >>issue for an open source project. But on this very particular topic, I'm >>actually worrying about GeoAPI since I don't think it is a serious issue >>for SIS... >> >> Regards, >> >> Martin >> >
