Hi Martin,
Excuse me for my delayed reply.
On 9/7/07, Martin Desruisseaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Daniele Romagnoli from Geosolution recently send us a document on
> Coverage I/O metadata. It sound like a very good draft to me. In the
> next bunch of emails, I'm going to comment some sections. I will send
> separated emails for different issues in order to create distinct
> threads.
>
> For this email, I will just raise minor issues on class namings.
>
>
>
> AbstractSpatioTemporalCoverageReader (figure 3)
> -----------------------------------------------
> If there is no SpatioTemporalCoverageReader, I would suggest to drop the
> "Abstract" prefix even if the class is abstract. This is a common
> practice in J2SE library: Reader, ImageReader, InputStream, Buffer,
> DataBuffer, RectangularShape, Rectangle2D, Ellipse2D and much much more
> are all abstract classes. Really, the "Abstract" prefix or "Default"
> prefix are just for distinguish a default base implementation from the
> interface it implements.
>
>
> ImageIOReader (figure 3)
> ------------------------
> "IO" is usually for "Input/Output". It is strange to have the "Output"
> part in a Reader. I guess you are talking about the J2SE ImageReader?
I just removed the "IO" part. I think when we wrote the doc, we wish to
write something like "Image I/O reader", meant as a J2SE ImageReader.
Figure 4 also have a "AbstractImageReader". I'm not sure if you are
> talking about the J2SE ImageReader or a new class. I guess that this is
> the J2SE one, in which case the "Abstract" prefix needs to be removed.
We talk about a J2SE ImageReader. However, this could be a "more powerful"
ImageReader (maybe several methods will be added on this class which may
differes from a standard ImageReader) extending the base J2SE ImageReader.
The Abstract prefix has been used with the same meaning of the one
introduced in the AbstractSpatioTemporalCoverageReader which need to be
extended with the specific subclasses.
You are right when saying that J2SE library abstract classes have no
"Abstract" prefix. I guess I can remove them :)
I will discuss about this with Simone and Alessio.
Minor typos
> -----------
> Page 17: "For our purposes we will to try to respect ...". There is one
> extra "to".
Fixed, thanks :D
Page 21 in the table: "stirng" should be "string".
Also Fixed , thanks :)
--
Best Regards,
Daniele Romagnoli
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
