Martin Desruisseaux ha scritto: > According a quick search on Google, it seems to me that current argument order > for GeographicBoundingBoxImpl(double,double,double,double): > > http://javadoc.geotools.fr/snapshot/org/geotools/metadata/iso/extent/GeographicBoundingBoxImpl.html#GeographicBoundingBoxImpl(double,%20double,%20double,%20double) > > is in contradiction with common usage. Common usage seems to be > (xmin,ymin,xmax,ymax) rather than (xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax). > > Any objection if I deprecate the above-constructor in GeoTools 2.4 and fix the > argument order in 2.5? The intend is to make developper life easier by > complying > to the order he is used to. Unless anyone can correct me in my interpretation > of > common usage?
I find the current approach confusing me too... I think it comes from the JTS Envelopes, that do use the (xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax) order (why, I don't know). Cheers Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
