Jody Garnett ha scritto: > Where are you at with this one David? It has been six days - are you > putting it to a vote? do you have enough feedback etc? > My own preference (collaborate at the geotools level) is too much work > even if the end result would be nice. > > Just as with the REST api I find the practice of voting to accept work > difficult when the work (and design decisions) are already made.
Chicken and egg. We cannot get a contract unless we restrict the scope enough to make it fundable. An ideal solution usually has a larger scope but there is no one interested in shelling out that much money (the ideal solution being to have a multi-renderer rendering system). Imho any feedback is good, but any scope enlarging feedback should be backed with a promise to put it the difference from whoever is asking the expansion. To be more direct, it's about putting money where the mouth is. The alternative is to vote down the GSIP because it's crappy, badly conceived of badly designed. Or to ask for changes enough to make it go sideways instead of affecting the core, for example adding an extension point that allows the new functionality to be plugged in. For example, in this case it's also possible to make whole decorations block an extension, and have the WMS expose a rendering post processing extension point (here is the graphics and the wms request, do what you want with it). Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: High Quality Requirements in a Collaborative Environment. Download a free trial of Rational Requirements Composer Now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-ibm-com _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
