Milton Jonathan ha scritto: > Hello people > > Sorry for the fast coding! We just wanted to see something working to > give us a better idea. But it's definitely not meant to be kept as it > is, just to start the process for us (especially since we are no > SLD-experts). > > OK, so let's see if I gather everything here: > - Ideally, we should move to 2.6 soon. I have two questions about that: > is it as stable as 2.5.x right now?
Hard to say, GeoServer is not using that in anger at the moment, but uDig is. I don't think major changes are going to plop into trunk at the moment, but I may be mistaken. The unit tests are about the same thought, so it should not be much worse for sure. > And is there much to change to make > the move? I ask this because we want to make a first release of our > projects using GeoTools in about two months time, so.. Either we do it > now, or later on, around May-June. And a side-effect question is: does > anyone want support for this in 2.5.x? Well, it would be a nice addition for GeoServer for sure, however I guess it would be better to have the code use the future proof api that we have in 2.6.x instead. I guess as an alternative it would also be possible to make changes in 2.5.x so that they are future compatible with the signatures available in 2.6.x > - Nice thing about the XML bindings! We were actually looking for that, > and quite puzzled with the whole SLDParser and SLDTransformer thing (why > reading and writing was done by separate classes, why it didn't use the > xsd definitions, etc, etc). But I understand it's not in use right now, > and there is a lot missing, right? Or is that just for 2.5.x? Are things > more developped in 2.6? Nope, the parser/encoder framework is so far used only by GeoServer, and only for GML/Filter/WFS. The SLD was developed as a proof of concept but afaik there are no short term plans to bring it up to speed. Your interest in it (and eventual help) might change that thought. However, I guess in case we start working on that, it might make sense to work against SLD 1.1 and SE 1.1. Some more investigation on our part is needed, in order to decide whether we have any resource to devote the effort. > 2. Determine if we can move to the XML bindings framework. That depends > on how much work we need to do to start to get things going. I guess it > also depends on the state of the bindings for Filter. Bindings for Filter 1.1 are there and working, GeoServer uses them for WFS 1.1. I'll let Justin chime in, he's the resident xml expert (and maintainer of the gt-xsd modules). Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open Source Business Conference (OSBC), March 24-25, 2009, San Francisco, CA -OSBC tackles the biggest issue in open source: Open Sourcing the Enterprise -Strategies to boost innovation and cut costs with open source participation -Receive a $600 discount off the registration fee with the source code: SFAD http://p.sf.net/sfu/XcvMzF8H _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
