Hi Johan, +1 I like your proposal.
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: johann sorel <[email protected]> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Date: Monday, May 6, 2013 12:12 AM To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Proposal to create sis-netcdf module Sunday >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 >>> >> >
