Jody Garnett a écrit :
> Martin do you have a write up on your preferred implementation - or are
> we supposed to read the
> specifications for the details. My concern is that this is an existing
> implementation for something that
> is rather needed; something that is very hard to say no to.
My understanding is that Category and CategoryList in the proposal are
refactored flavor of classes of the same name in org.geotools.coverage. I don't
think that this refactoring was needed for styling. Some new methods may be
needed, but it can be done on top of existing implementations.
A refactoring would be legitimate if existing Category/CategoryList were broken
or if the proposal was built on new ground (new framework, better design,
etc.).
But I don't think it is the case. I believe that this TransformCategory split
is
conceptually incorrect unless we also move scale, offset, nodata and unit from
SampleDimension to some subinterface - but current proposal do not etablish the
relationship between all those concepts. Because of that, there is a risk to
increase the confusion at the opposite of the goal of making things simplier
for
users. I do realize however that "sampleToGeophysics" was probably a bad name
and "sampleToUnit" may help to clarify.
Because this refactoring doesn't seem necessary for raster symbolizer, my
proposal is to go away with symbolizer without introducing those Category
flavors.
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
