Hi Andrea - as always your feedback is fun (and blunt! Sorry that should be honest :-D ) > Jody Garnett ha scritto: >> Hi Mauricio & Justin, >> >> Both of you have asked about moving stuff around in the last couple >> of months, and I am finally writing up a proposal so we can do the >> work. Right now you have different package naming conventions going >> on; the proposal is about keeping it consistent. >> >> - >> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Provide+common+parsers+in+a+consistent+fashion >> >> >> - http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-1200 >> >> A related note is the "roll it into main" or separate modules idea; I >> would like to have main be a complete story in this respect (ie CQL, >> XML parsing ... and WKT are part of the library). Although talking to >> justin the number of bindings may get out of hand over time. > > I have a bit of unorganized thoughts in my mind, let's see if a dump > is useful. > > CQL is currently not supporting fid filters, thus whilst very nice > cannot be used as a default filter parser. It's also probably not > tested enough, thought that would be solved if unit tests are switched > to CQL instead of relying on programmatic filter construction. I don't care one lick about "fid" in terms of user questions it is not something that they ask right off the bat. FidFilter also cannot be combined with anything else (darn specification).
So I like the split: - CQL used as examples to answer the 90% question (how do I query) - "fid" is used as a direct intro to show FilterFactory - then we can do "for more details" section showing that FilterFactory can also be used for the general queries ... It is a good story; people could learn about filter that way, and it would make our docs look sane. > The new XML SLD, GML2, GML3 and filter parser are huge bad beasts, > their jars sum up to 700kb, whilst the current main module sums > up to 1 MB. Merging them into main concerns me quite a bit. Agreeed; it would be merged into "xml" (possible with child modules if I understand Justin), main is big enough already (are you going to write up a proposal for changing what code goes where? You started an email discussion two weeks ago ...) I would however like to sort out the package issues ... does the package names make sense? > All in all I would prefer to have to pay only for what I need... > I would not be against merging CQL for the sake of easy testing, > but I would move out current filter and sld parsing in its > own module (to avoid having duplicate parsers in main). So does moving them to xml help you? > As for having consistent package naming, I'm all for it. So there are two approaches in the code base for consistent package naming - what is your preference. Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
