Hello all
I went ahead and renamed the "org.apache.sis.util.type"package as
"org.apache.sis.util.iso". Will not totally true, maybe being 80% true
(or even 95% true if we consider that InternationalString is similar in
purpose to <gmd:textGroup> in ISO 19139) is close enough...
Thanks for feedbacks,
Martin
Le 09/12/12 06:04, Adam Estrada a écrit :
Do you think changing it to something more specific like "utilitytype" or
"utiltype" would make more sense? I suppose that sis/util/type kind of knocks that out
but still...
Just thinking out loud here.
Adam
On Dec 8, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
The commits in the last few days included:
Implementations of interfaces derived from ISO 19103: AbstractName, LocalName,
ScopedName, MemberName, TypeName. Unfortunately, those objects are not easy to
understand, since the ISO 19103 specification is not very explicit. But they
appear in XML documents, so we have to support them in some way... The package
javadoc does it best for trying to explain them:
https://builds.apache.org/job/sis-jdk7/site/apidocs/org/apache/sis/util/type/package-summary.html
I'm uncomfortable with the "type" package name. The current content is more about naming (indeed,
the package name in Geotoolkit.org was "naming"), but with the addition of Type, RecordType,
RecordSchema and Record classes from ISO 19103, the package starts looking a bit like the java.lang.Class and
Field architecture. I have been unable to find something better than "type" for now, but I would
still like to find a better none.
