johann.sorel wrote: >> Johann I have been trying to talk to you about the last remaining >> design decisions with respect to variable length functions - >> basically since you started the work. If you notice in my email below >> I am making a decision to treat the number of parameters as a MINIMUM >> value - will that work out for you. >> > I've already tryed to add this special check in the function > contructor a month ago when we tryed the categorize function. But the > Function discovery mecanism raised an error so I haven't push further > in the expression/filterfactory code. (we exchanged a few mails about > this). I recall the emails; I don't think we made a decision? > If you can fix thoses minimum values check then Yes it is a good thing. I can fix the minimum value checks (fixing code is easy :-) making a decision is hard :-( ). >> We are running into some inconsistencies with the style interface >> after your recent deprecations; my co-worker will send the details. > I'm not surprised, only deprecating methods/classes and not providing > the new ones doesn't help. The new methods and implementations fix are > in the patch for 2.6.x . That will be okay for uDig work (since we are staying on the 2.6.x train). Jody
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
