Completely agree with Bryce. There should not be any problems related to stripping out interfaces since the first thing I did when I started working on GridCoverages was to actually use the GeoApi interfaces throughout all the code!
Simone. On 10/24/05, Bryce L Nordgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/24/2005 02:22:24 PM: > > > Got it, I am simply concerned with manging things right now. I want > > everyone to be able to work in the most efficient manner possible. I > > understand that Gabriel is out of time for talking and process and is > > now working on a branch somewhere? > > > > Here is my only question: > > - How does my plans to separate all of the interfaces from main work > > with you need to separate out coverage? > > > If I understand this right, I think the two are almost completely > independent. Most of the current Coverage stuff is already ported to > GeoAPI interfaces (e.g., no interfaces in main). I don't think stripping > out the interfaces from main will impact org.geotools.coverage.* at all. > Even if it does have some minimal impact, we do intend to regularly merge > changes in trunk into our branch. > > I vote +1 (for splitting coverage into its own module) of course, but I > don't count. :) > > Bryce > PS: w.r.t. JIRA issues and using subtasks: does anyone know if subtasks are > heirarchical? Can I have subtasks of subtasks? No problem if no one > knows, I'll just try it. I just want to avoid cluttering up JIRA with > "organizational" mistakes from blind experimentation. > > ------------------------------------------------------- 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
