Martin Desruisseaux ha scritto: > Andrea Aime a écrit : >> Now, that longitude is in fact way out of range, but most WMS >> client do not have a knowledge of what the proper bounds are >> for a projection. It seems to me that it would be better to turn >> those exceptions into assertions, that is, make them trigger only >> someone really asked for detailed sanity checks. > > Yes I already though about relaxing the coordinate checks in projections > and I fully agree that we need a way to disable those checks. I just > don't know yet how we should do that. I don't think that assertions > would be the best way since "assert" statements are usually for catching > logical errors that are internal to the implementation. In this case, > the issue is rather in the way we use the projection. > > So a Hint to be given to the factory (we already have a lot of > hints...)? Or replace exceptions by warnings? I'm more tempted by the > later, but then at which frequency to log? For every point out of bounds > would be too much. Only the first time may be not enough...
Good questions. Logging is tempting all right, but as you notice, we may end up logging a ton of staments... when we reproject 100 points in an array now it fails at the first one that does end up outside of the stardard geographic bounds, but if we log, we would end up logging 100 times? That would definitely be too much ;) What about using the leniency hint, that we already use to avoid exception when the towgs84 params are missing? 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
