Adrian Custer wrote: > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:40 -0800, Jody Garnett wrote: > >> Jody Garnett wrote: >> Please consider Eclesia's proposal to >> be much more simple (and thus much >> more likely to succeed). >> > Okay, then I have no comments really. If you are doing something tight > that you understand, great. I thought I saw the beginnings of something > else. > Yeah I see where you were heading as well; ie what uDig started. Lets sort out our registry solution first and then we can take on the wider world. >> Just so we are on the same page Adrian: you see that the process results >> in an Object? >> > No I hadn't but it's nice. I tend to think of <result.set> which would > have slots for you to put in process results, and other slots for > commentary on the job and the whole thing could be totally or mostly > empty for other processes. R has a nice habit of taking the return > object and calling its .toString() method (more or less) so you see its > output in the console. > Do you have any sample code? That sounds like a food idea ... kind of a Map return value with well known keys? I confess I have not looked at R (right now I am picturing something similar to Mathlab or SAP). > no idea about ETL. > Extract-Transform-Load scripts; it used to be specifically what people would do in Perl to process data for a data warehouse; now it is a genre of software development with its own pecking order (I view it as the last gaps of 4th Generation Programming Languages - something they were good at before Domain Specific Languages stole their thunder).
Rant over, Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
