On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Michael Bedward <[email protected]
> wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
>
> I'm not looking to modify the new classes or their names. I just want
> to cull old classes that have been superseded by the new code. So for
> vectorizing, I'd get rid of the old process and factory classes and
> adapt the unit tests for the newer, neater PolygonExtractionProcess.
>
> Regarding the process.raster.gs package, I wondered whether this was
> just a temp porting thing or whether it was a GeoServer requirement.
> If the former then perhaps we can just have them in process.raster
> since the existing VectorToRasterXXX classes all that's there and they
> are destined to be replaced.
>
I can let go of the "this comes from GeoServer" advertisement in the code,
however there are backwards compatibility troubles in GeoServer land.
So the thing is, to make these processes usable outside of the direct
bean instantiation, that is, using the process API, they will have to be
put into some process factory.
The moment we do GeoServer will pick them up from that factory as well,
giving me the same process twice in the list under two different
"namespaces".
Scratch scratch... not sure how to handle this one.
One way might be to have the GeoServer process factory stop advertising
them, but then have some internal delegation mechanism so that if
gs:Contour is no more there, gt:Contour will be looked up.
>
> My more general questions were me trying to understand where you and
> Jody are heading with the raster processes and how they do, or perhaps
> don't, relate to coverage operations. I don't have any plan or ideas
> about it myself - just want to understand it for my own use and to be
> able to explain it to others on the user list and in the docs.
>
I honestly have no clue. Personally I find using the processes as beans
easier than using the coverage operations, but I also saw Simone and Daniele
adding new coverage operations and then wrapping them as processes
lately, so I don't know... I guess the easier explanation is the most likely
one in this case: there is no plan :-p
Cheers
Andrea
--
-------------------------------------------------------
Ing. Andrea Aime
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Tech lead
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 962313
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT
http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
http://twitter.com/geowolf
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable.
Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security
threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes
sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2dcopy2
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
