On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com>wrote:
> And why not be explicit directly in code? An argument has a name and a type
> directly... what would the point of storing them in a property file? Only
> thing i can think of is for i18n purposes.
>
>
> The point is to quickly get gt-main functions back; without going through
> all of them again. Better then hard coding the information that an argument
> named "geom" defaults to Geometry.class?
>
> I really don't see how something like:
functionName("geom")
is much of a time saver over functionName("geom", Geometry.class)
But sure, i am not against such a utility. My vote would be a static method
on one of the function base classes.
However mass updating all the functions so that they properly declare
argument names and types is outside of my scope of work here... my goal for
now is just to update the api. If people feel that updating all the
functions is a blocker for this proposal to go through then unfortunately i
won't be able to see it through as I am already running over the time
estimated for this task.
> Jody
>
>
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
vRanger cuts backup time in half-while increasing security.
With the market-leading solution for virtual backup and recovery,
you get blazing-fast, flexible, and affordable data protection.
Download your free trial now.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/quest-d2dcopy1
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
