I'm 0 (neutral) on the Node and Visitor classes - I don't really know how they
fit in the big picture because of my lack of knowledge of styling and streaming
renderer.
However I ask to remove from the proposal the new Category hierarchy. I realize
that the existing Category class may need to be extented in order to meet
RasterSymbolizer needs, but I'm in disagreement with the TransformCategory
split
proposed there.
The proposed Category hierarchy duplicates org.geotools.coverage.Category
introducing confusion if they appear in public API (and they will since they
would be included in the javadoc). I'm in disagreement with Simone's view about
"sampleToGeophysics". It is a packaged form of "scale", "offset" and "nodata"
attributes which anyone can found in NetCDF, HDF and other file formats and is
even part of OGC specification. It is closely tied to Unit of Measurement,
which
is indisociable from Coverage data (this is also OGC specification). It is
conceptually related to "gridToCRS" transform, which is also indisociable from
any Coverage.
The "Raster symbolizer" proposal actually mixes both a raster symbolizer and a
refactoring of Category - even if it is in a separated package. I'm against the
later. I'm not against a refactoring of Category, but I disagree with the one
which is proposed on that page and I'm against the fact that this refactoring
would be done in a separated package.
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
Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
