On 25 September 2011 19:32, Andrea Aime <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
If changing the current arrangement in GeoTools is just going to create extra work for no gain then let's not do it ! I don't see any big deal for GeoTools users and whatever package names or factory arrangement is adopted can be explained 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 Ah yes, the no-plan plan. I'm with you on processes seeming a lot easier than coverage operations. Jody has said the same. I suspect they are also very much easier for new users to learn. They just seem cleaner and more elegant to me - or to put it another way, I can understand them whereas I approach coverage operations with reluctance and fear. Adding new algorithms as coverage ops and then wrapping them as process seems like a recipe for more maintenance overhead, but perhaps there are good reasons to do some things that way. Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
