Jody Garnett a écrit :
>> A while ago, GeoAPI had a "pending" directory for this kind of work.
>> This directory has been replaced by "trunk" for better alignment with
>> common practice. If there is an other layout proposal, I'm open to
>> that. The layout may be to put experimental interfaces on GeoTools
>> SVN - I'm fine with that too.
>>
> I agree about use of trunk it is more clear all around. I am more
> worried about the "two implementations" rule that I would like to see
> used for GeoAPI interfaces. Is that something we can get done - or at
> least take steps to get done?
I prefer "trunk" as well. As for the "two implementations" rule, I already took
steps to get in done for the referencing module: I have sent a patch for making
JScience compliant with latest GeoAPI JAR:
https://jscience.dev.java.net/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96
I did that for referencing, but unfortunatly can't do that for every modules.
> Alternative ideas:
> - test cases showing sample use - even if they cannot be run?
We can do runnable test cases. A lot of GeoTools referencing test cases could
be
moved as GeoAPI tests. The tests can search for a factory in META-INF/services
and run. Like usual the only reason why it is not yet done is lack of time.
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
