Hi,
Do we keep both coverage and feature stores in the same group ?
What about web services clients ?
In geotoolkit we have 3 groups : coverage store, feature store and clients.
Examples :
- Geotiff is a coveragestore
- Shapefile is a featurestore
- Postgis is both a coveragestore and featurestore
- WMS is client and a coverage store
- WFS is a client and a feature store
- CSW is a client (provide metadatas but is not a coverage store or a
feature store)
Just with the Geotoolkit formats, that would make about 30 modules.
I think coverage and feature store should be together since in theory
coverages are features
and with time I believe the apis for them will get closer and closer.
But clients even if they provide coverage or features should be in a
separate group.
What about this :
sis-storage
- sis-shapefile
- sis-geotiff
- sis-postgis
- ...
sis-client
- sis-wms
- sis-wfs
- sis-csw
- ...
Johann Sorel
Geomatys
On 06/05/2013 01:54, Charith Madusanka wrote:
+1 from me.
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Adam Estrada <[email protected]> wrote:
Hmm...It does make sense to do it that way. I look at the way GDAL
references its drivers and writing out the entire name gets to be messy,
IMO. "ESRI Shapefile" with the space in it is not cool.
So, if in Maven you need to reference each module with the preceding sis-*
I think that would definitely be a lot cleaner.
Adam
On May 5, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Greg Reddin wrote:
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
