On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 1:32 AM, andrea antonello <andrea.antone...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am doing some prototyping on the process api and JGrass processing > modules and I have to say I find the api quite invasive, given the > fact that it should lead people to bring their algorithms to be > compatible with geotools. > > Following the new process implementation link [1], I have some > comment, to which it would be great to have some back-comment. > - the fact that I have to extend a class instead of implementing an > interface is a bit strange to me
You can change it over to an interface if you like. > - the fact that i am forced to create a factory class and even pass it to my > module constructor, also I think that was trying to not duplicate the description of input parameters? Can you see any other reason for the factory to be needed? I would prefer some kind of process info; that is avaialble from both the factory and the process itself. > the process api? With Sextante it went the way round, right? I guess > they didn't adapt to the process api. What does Sextante do to describe input parameters and produced results? > Any comments are welcome, in the meanwhile I will look out to find if > the factory and process can be generated somehow from annotations. If we could annotate the parameters and results that would be perfect. Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance. See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel