Martin Desruisseaux wrote: > At this time, the GeoAPI BoundingBox interface states explicitly that an > Envelope that implements BoundingBox (like current ReferencedEnvelope) must > be 2 > dimensional. We could decide to relax the BoundingBox contract. I'm not sure > if > it would be a good thing or not. Maybe Jody as an opinion? > It sounds like Bolla has found that BoundingBox is not up to the task; I would like to change the scope of BoundingBox to provide additional helper methods for "common" axis; having them return NaN if the existing extent does not have a time axis for example. > Relaxing the check in ReferenceEnvelope would allows violation of this > contract. > Methods that expect an ReferencedEnvelope in argument (for example because the > implementor intented to restrict the envelope to 2D case because of limitation > in his algorithm, and wanted this check to be performed at compile-time) may > break, because the method could now receive 3D or 4D envelopes that the code > is > not prepared to handle. > I would be okay with using a ReferencedEnvelope that could meet the following two sets of assumptions: - Envelope: for JTS should be returning topology constraints on the first two spatial axis. - BoundingBox: for GeoAPI should have what ever methods we need to get the job done.
Sorry I dont have much time for this one right now; it is a fascinating problem. Bolla when you figure this out let us know what is needed on the uDig side of things and we will make it happen. I want to hook you up with a time slider for instance ;-) Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
