Hello Adam and Travis
Lets keep Shapefile in its own module then. I wonder out of curiosity,
is there a "family" of formats very similar to Shapefile? If such family
exists, would it make sense to create a module for such
"Shapefile-family" formats and what would be the name? If not, creating
a module for Shapefile only is fine.
Thanks for the feedback
Martin
Le 26/08/13 03:47, Travis L Pinney a écrit :
Hi Adam and Martin,
Would it be ok to leave it as is because there are a small number of data
storage modules currently? I think of storage as something that holds
common formats that run across all the different storage formats, like a
Feature. Eventually it will get to the point where you will not want to
have a multitude of jar files. I see the sis-shapefile as a fairly distinct
file driver because of the complex format of a shapefile (not necessarily
good complexity).
Adding GDAL bindings for commons formats would be very useful. This would
make it easier to do large bulk processing of geospatial data with Hadoop
like the presentation in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JCPf89s-NI
Thanks,
Travis
