Something like that is what I'd suggest too. Sent from my mobile device.
On May 5, 2013, at 4:31 PM, "Mattmann, Chris A (398J)" <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 >
