Hey Martin, What about a single module:
sis-storage That has underneath it: netcdf shapefile kxml Sub modules? That should reduce the top level bloat. In addition, +1 to keeping all o.a.sis.storage.netcdf.* together (and similarly for o.a.sis.storage.kml, and o.a.sis.storage.shapefile) Cheers! Chris ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Senior Computer Scientist NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> Organization: Geomatys Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, May 5, 2013 1:58 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proposal to create sis-netcdf module Sunday >Thanks for the vote, I started the creation of a NetCDF module on my >local machine. > >Maybe we should find now a naming convention for those kind of modules? >After NetCDF, we will probably have Shapefile, KML and many others. One >possible schema could be "sis-store-something", e.g.: > > * sis-store-netcdf > * sis-store-shapefile > * sis-store-kml > >An alternative could be "sis-data-something". > >Similar question apply to the package name. In Geotk, the NetCDF >metadata part was in "org.geotoolkit.metadata.netcdf" and the Coverage >I/O part in an other package. But for SIS I would like regroup all >NetCDF stuff in a single package, for reducing the amount of packages. >What about the following? > > * org.apache.sis.store.netcdf > >Again an alternative could be "org.apache.sis.data.netcdf". However >"data" suggests more to me a particular set of data rather than a >storage mechanism... > > Martin >
