On 1/23/06, Jody Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > simone giannecchini wrote: > > >aehm, the attachement was not... attched! > > > >Simone. > > > >On 1/23/06, simone giannecchini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Hi guys, i would like to know what do you think about the attached > >>drawing. I have been asked to write something about geotools and > >>geoserver and this will part of the complete stack. > >> > >> > Hi Simone ;-) Your diagram is interesting - but not the way I think > about geotools. > You do have layers close to what you describe: > 1. Filter should be Filter/Expression (because Styling acutallly uses > Expression)
agree! > 2. Coverages are built ontop of Features (or at least at the same level) Mmmmhhh, I do not completely agree with this. Following specifications coverage is a subtype of geographic feature. I am aware that when we currently say feature we want to say feature with geometry which is a subtype of geographic feature as well, but I think in our context is more correct say that feature are both that same level as well as above coverages. As an instance, in the Geoserver we develop we render coverages wrapping them inside a feature, in order to follow strictly the specification. > 3. Geometry & JTS are kind of at the same level/or the same thing, > unless you are talking about the lite Java > Shape classes Martin uses in J2D Renderer (in which case they are > part of rendering) I agree, but I wanted to keep third party libraries separated from the rest f the stack. Do you think that keeping things this way is misleading? > 4. GML is built ontop of Features and XML Mmmmhhh, I have a small experience with GML plugin, but shouldn't GML be seen at least as a way to represent feature (we extract feature from GML and we write features in GML)? Besides this I am trying also to point out possible extension points therefore, in case we implemented more of the GML spec GML modules would be almost everywhere, am I right? > 5. Metadata is at the same level as CRS and Units. I agree, but again I designed it this way because I was thinking about a possible implementation of a catalog, therefore I thought it would have been correct to extend them to the top. Anyway I think you are right with pointing out that they mainly reside at a lower level. > But the only one that is really interesting is this - the Plugins happen > at each and everyone of those layers. > What do you mean exactly? I wanted here to remark the separation between the plugins for the I/O for features and coverages and the various other abstractions levels. Can you tell me a bit more about your thoughts on this? > You can also name some of the services built ontop of the core: Graph, > Validation > I will do this layer focusing on WMS, WCS and WFS > You can find my take on the situtation, in the developers guide: I am > sorry but confluence is down and I cannot send you the link. > I base this work on that drawing! I will make some corrections but I will wait a bit before resending it, your opinions as well as the opinions of anyone else are well accepted. Simone. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
