I know some of you want to know why we aren’t just going to use the GeoAPI interfaces. I don’t know enough about the GeoAPI code to say that it won’t be used. I think that will need to be part of our research process. It would make sense to use GeoAPI as a home for common interfaces if this is possible. I don’t want to reinvent any existing technology.
Just to chime in about GeoAPI. From someone who has had to implement a number of its interfaces here are my thoughts.

1) Its a great way to talk about standards in the context of java interfaces

2) Its not a good way to promote interoperability

Now this is just my opinion of course so take it with a grain of salt. But anyone who has looked at the geoapi interfaces can tell you they are not simple. Which creates a large entry barrier for someone wanting to implement them, which defeats the entire purpose.

I would think by definition a library which is intended to be used as a base for other projects needs to be as simple as possible. Look at proj for instance, i am by no means an expert on the code base but from what I have seen there are no unnecessary abstractions. Which I would think is a large part of the reason it has been utilized so effectively by most of the other projects in the C and python community.

My 2c.



P.S. – I have subscribed to the MetaCRS mailing list. I will post messages there about any decisions made on sharing “programming-language-independent” (PLI) resources like CRS definitions or test cases.

*Information provided via electronic media is not guaranteed against defects including translation and transmission errors. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately. !DSPAM:4007,481f601c109671628642973!


Discuss mailing list


Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to