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&#174; 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

Reply via email to