Matthias Basler wrote:
Jody wrote:
So before we continue w/ this conversation I gotta confirm what you are
testing?
- geotools/branches/fm
No. I don't intend to interfer with this.
Okay then you are either going to get lost, or work directly against the
existing geotools feature model.
GeoAPI is a project shared by more then just the geotools community as
such it has things in it we don't implement (catalog) and things
we refused to implement (like that horrible feature model).
- geoapi/pending
Since I had not followed this topic much until now I didn't realize there is
something like "geoapi/pending". I just had a look at it. To me this looks
like a major extension of GeoAPI for complex features, possibly more.
Indeed, it is focused on two things:
- making complex features possible for geotools
- making feature type modeling possible at all
- setting up opperations so that Coverate can be a Feature (this is
still pending)
To give you the whole picture:
This was early research for a FeatureTable widget. I wondered on what set of
interfaces such widget could operate. Since I want to use Java5, I did not
consider the GeoTools interfaces, but rather looked at the geoapi tiger
interfaces to check if they were suitable. Then I wanted to build a very
very simple implementation of some Feature related interfaces for testing
any such future widget ... and failed as you read.
Agreed, but it sounds like you know where we are at and where we are
going. What is available in pending
is a sensble target for a Java 5 implementation. We have been very
careful and it is a minimalist api. If you want
we can start a geotools 3.x branch for you to try a Java 5
implementation ;-)
The initial prototype work was done with Java 5, so we *do* know that
this thing hangs together.
Do I understand this right: The fm branch for 2.3 will not be based on
GeoAPI 2.0, but on the "inofficial" geoapi/pending interfaces, which, as you
hope will eventually become part of the official GeoAPI 2.0.
Yes, it will be based on GeoAPI 2.1.M0 (aka a stable milestone release
for implementors to give feedback on,
we may call it 2.1.RC1 when the javadocs are complete and it is ready
for review, and then that would be renamed
2.1 after it has made it past the working group.
Sound good?
You may wish to send your origional review to the GeoAPI list? Add a
comment on the RnD page comparing feature models.
I'll see what I can do. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback, and the careful review of geoapi-2.0-tiger,
sorry it was not up to snuff.
Jody
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
