You can learn about Yed here: http://www.yworks.com/en/products_yed_about.html
Unfortunately it is free, but not "free" as in open source. :[ Landon On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Sunburned Surveyor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems like you've got led me to the correct place. I'll revisit > this issue when I have some working code. > > Landon > > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Jody Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sunburned Surveyor wrote: >>> >>> No problem Jody. I'm just trying to clear up my own confusion, that's all. >>> :] >>> >>> I think I'll just stick with implementing >>> org.opengis.PropertyDescriptor and org.opengis.PropertyType for now. I >>> won't be able to take advantage of any GeoTools abstract >>> implementations for the time being, but that's OK. >>> >>> If I understand the difference between PropertyDescriptor and >>> PropertyType it seems that there will be a lot of opportunities to >>> share common PropertyType definitions, while PropertyDescriptors will >>> likely be unique to a particular type of Feature. Is that a correct >>> understanding? >>> >> >> Perfect! I am happy - the difference between these two (so you can arrive at >> the understanding above) is *exactly* what was missing from GeoTools 2; >> having this sorted out >> is what is going to make GeoTools 3 great ;-) >>> >>> So, as an example, I might define a LatitudePropertyType for a >>> property whose binding is the Double class, but whose list of >>> restrictions (implementations of Filter) don't permit values greater >>> than +90 or less than -90. I could then define the assign this >>> LatitudePropertyType to my DataObject or SimpleFeature that represents >>> a Waypoint, but it could also be used by others... >>> >> >> Perfect. >>> >>> The question is, do I make LatitudePropertyType extend a >>> DoublePropertyType? >>> >> >> We have a couple of options; we can make a bunch of PropertyTypes based on >> the XML simple definitions (if you find you need that sort of thing). Or you >> can just use Double.class as your "binding". >> The idea of a "bunch of PropertyTypes" that are formally defined is what the >> architect astronauts call a "vocabulary", but at this point even I get bored >> and wait for someone to pay me to figure out more. Perhaps you with more >> domain knowledge then me can make sense of it? >>> >>> Do I store LatitudePropertyType in org.geotools.gpx2.propertytypes >>> package, or in something more global, like >>> org.geotools.feaure.type.shared.propertytypes? >>> >> >> Let's keep it in org.geotools.gpx2.types for now and we can "share" it with >> others when their is a need. >>> >>> I'm afraid I have more questions than answers at this point. I may just >>> have to throw together some code for you guys to look at and comment on. >>> >> >> It is all good; running code is a great place to start a conversation. >>> >>> Landon >>> >>> P.S. - I have attached a preliminary UML diagram for TextualAttributeType >>> that I threw together using Yed. >>> >> >> I have not me Yed... >> Have a good one. >> 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
