+1, sounds good Martin. Let's have:
sis-storage sis-kml sis-netcdf sis-shapefile Then. Sounds like we agree on package naming, so +1! 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 2:16 PM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proposal to create sis-netcdf module Sunday >Hello Chris > >Le 05/05/13 23:05, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) a écrit : >> What about a single module: >> >> sis-storage >> >> That has underneath it: >> netcdf >> shapefile >> kxml >> >> Sub modules? That should reduce the top level bloat. > >Maybe with a slight modification? > > storage > >as the parent module, then > > sis-netcdf > sis-shapefile > sis-kml > >as sub-modules. The reason is that "leaf" sub-modules are also JAR file >names, at least in default Maven configuration. > >> 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) > >Cool, org.apache.sis.storage.netcdf sound fine. > > Martin >
