Jody Garnett a écrit :
> Interesting we now have three pages about coverage support:
> a) http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Improve+support+of+RGB+coverages
> b)
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Data+Access+API+for+ISO+Coverage+and+ISO+Feature
> c)
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/CoverageStore+based+on+WCS+Specification
a) The first one has been created just a few hours ago as suggested
on the mailing list, but I have not yet put real content in it.
b) I'm not aware of the second one...
c) The third one is a very old issue not directly related to this view stuff.
All today emails exchange relate to (a) only. The other issues can be pushed
back to an other discussion.
> a) This appears to be new; but I cannot figure out what the view method
> is for. help?
It is an attempt of generalization of the old GridCoverage2D.geophysics(boolean)
method, which was bad because it didn't recognized the needs for photographic
images.
The API change is tiny: deprecate "geophysics(boolean)" and propose the more
generic "view(ViewType)" method instead, thats all!! So this is a compatible
change on API point of view.
While the change is compatible on API point of view, it has a lot of implication
under the hood which are likely to spread over every image operations performed
by the coverage module. Those implications are invisible to the users and the
coverage module behavior should stay the same for most "standard" use, but the
behavior may change in some corner cases.
I will try to elaborate more on those views in the wiki page...
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
