Hi list, I have been away for away for a while but I have been following the traffic on the ML. Let me explain a bit what is going on under the hood. Two weeks ago Bryce and Megan from USFS FireLab came to Italy for a confernce therefore, taking advantage of that, me Alessio and them had a fruitful meeting about GeoTools and GeoServer with respect with each other's needs. It came out clearly that the support for coverages in GeoTools is somehow still poor for the reasons I summarise below: 1>Plugins should exploit better the capabilities of JAI and ImageIO 2>We need to start experimenting with ND coverages whse CRS has Timed and Altitude/Depth.
Taking this into account we came out with a proposal for a time schedule as you can see at the end of this pae http://www.geotools.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Coverage+Support+Plans. One thing was clear from the beginning, we need to branch if we want to work without breaking the current build, but in order to do so we would like to separate all the packages which relate to coverages from the other since we need also to use the feature models. This is the rationale behind the request for the split, in the next weeks we could set up an IRC meeting to discuss the time schedule and to see if someone is interested in joining the effort. Simone. PS I do not manage to connect to the irc server, is the old adress still valid? On 10/24/05, Martin Desruisseaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I volunter for creating a coverage module (i.e. moving the > org.geotools.coverage and org.geotools.image packages, currently in > main, to their own module) as suggested in last week Alessio's email, > but need a green light from the PMC. Given that I will be away for the > next week because of the OGC meeting, if we decide to create a coverage > module I need to do the work this week. Otherwise it would have to wait > until mid-November. > > Note that a branch would also be created in addition. I suggest to > create a coverage module in trunk, and then create a branch for Alessio > and Bryce work. > > I would also like to know what to do with the 2.2.M1 release. Do I > process even if javadoc is truncated and main doesn't build from the > unzipped source? It was already the case in 2.2.M0 (unless I did > something wrong during my test). > > Martin. > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. > Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course > Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 > Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
