[Geotools-devel] [CC-Trunk] geotools build.244 Build Successful

View results here -> http://geovista16.geog.psu.edu/cruisecontrol/buildresults/geotools_current?log=log20051025005130Lbuild.244 --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free

[Geotools-devel] [GT-Trunk-Snapshot] geotools-snapshot build.21 Build Successful

View results here -> http://geovista16.geog.psu.edu/cruisecontrol/buildresults/geotools_snapshot?log=log20051025003056Lbuild.21 --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free

[Geotools-devel] [CC-Trunk] geotools build.243 Build Successful

View results here -> http://geovista16.geog.psu.edu/cruisecontrol/buildresults/geotools_current?log=log20051025002652Lbuild.243 --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free

Re: [Geotools-devel] Re: Postgis, merge and Online tests?

This is what I suggested Dave do when he was having problems and it worked well for him. Jody Garnett wrote: Justin Deoliveira wrote: I had to disable the tests on trunk because james was behind a firewall that blocks 5432. You will see an exclude tag in the postgis project.xml file. We ca

[Geotools-devel] [CC-Trunk] geotools build.242 Build Successful

View results here -> http://geovista16.geog.psu.edu/cruisecontrol/buildresults/geotools_current?log=log20051024225500Lbuild.242 --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free

[Geotools-devel] Re: Postgis, merge and Online tests?

Justin Deoliveira wrote: I had to disable the tests on trunk because james was behind a firewall that blocks 5432. You will see an exclude tag in the postgis project.xml file. We can enable it again but people also complained about the test taking too long. Not sure what to do - neither way w

Re: [Geotools-devel] Naming_Covention huh?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All the functions that look like "FilterFunction_relate.java" are autogenerated. If you want you can move them to target/generated-src/main/java but I suggest you leave them there or no one will ever find them. We already have to find them in that the target/generated

[Geotools-devel] Naming_Covention huh?

All the functions that look like "FilterFunction_relate.java" are autogenerated. If you want you can move them to target/generated-src/main/java but I suggest you leave them there or no one will ever find them. dave -- This mail sent thro

Re: [Geotools-devel] Naming_Covention huh?

For those playing in eclipse: - Jody --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees T

[Geotools-devel] Re: Postgis, merge and Online tests?

I had to disable the tests on trunk because james was behind a firewall that blocks 5432. You will see an exclude tag in the postgis project.xml file. We can enable it again but people also complained about the test taking too long. Jody Garnett wrote: Hi Justin, I have just commited Corey's

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 sanity check

Martin Desruisseaux wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : If a fix is not forthcoming we can simply commit the generated source code into the repository and cary on. I tried it too, and it didn't worked for me (an other file was missing, but I couldn't guess from the error message which file Ja

[Geotools-devel] Postgis, merge and Online tests?

Hi Justin, I have just commited Corey's changes to trunk - and had a question for you. When running tests in plugin/postgis. The OnlineTest are not run, -o has no effect ... suggestions? The code passed my review, some of James code did not (had to set it up for concurrency when say the min va

[Geotools-devel] [CC-Trunk] geotools build.241 Build Successful

View results here -> http://geovista16.geog.psu.edu/cruisecontrol/buildresults/geotools_current?log=log20051024213702Lbuild.241 --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 sanity check

[EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : If a fix is not forthcoming we can simply commit the generated source code into the repository and cary on. I tried it too, and it didn't worked for me (an other file was missing, but I couldn't guess from the error message which file JavaCC were looking for).

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 sanity check

Quoting Martin Desruisseaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jody Garnett a écrit : > > I did not run into any problems making the release: > > > > Sanity check welcome: > > - http://lists.refractions.net/geotools/gt2/geotoos-src-2.2.M1.zip > > Did you tried to unzip this file and run "maven build" there,

[Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 src does not compile

This could be where Martin got stuck ... when compiling the 2.2.M1 source release (link posted earlier) I get the following problem testing main. I have tried replacing my repository etc ... I think James was the last person playing with JavaCC? This problem did not exist for the 2.2.M0 release as

Re: [Geotools-devel] Slight GTopo30 improvements

Michel Krämer a écrit : I would like to contribute my improvements of the GTopo30 plugin. Hopefully the plugin will be included in the next Geotools release again. I know I'm answering very late (sorry for that), but did you get any feedback about yours contribution? I believe that there is no

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 sanity check

Jody Garnett a écrit : I did not run into any problems making the release: Sanity check welcome: - http://lists.refractions.net/geotools/gt2/geotoos-src-2.2.M1.zip Did you tried to unzip this file and run "maven build" there, as suggested in the developper guide "Test the src release" section

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 tagged

Jody Garnett a écrit : I don't really want to encourage Maven 2 until: - Justin or james trys it and says yes (they are the ones tasked with keeping this on the read) Using Maven 2 doesn't means the abandon of Maven 1 right now. Maven 1 and 2 can live together. Peoples can (if they want) tr

Re: [Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

jgarnett a écrit : So far I know of: - module/api - interfaces only - module/referencing - impls for geoapi - module/main - impls for geotools - module/coverage - separated out for hacking? Actually: - module/coverage - impls for geoapi exactly like module/referencing. Is this your unders

[Geotools-devel] Naming_Covention huh?

I am looking in org.geotools.filter.function There are 8 classes like Collection_AverageFunction.java And 85 classes like FilterFunction_relate.java Did we just give up on following our developers guide here? I understand if the code is generated that something magic may be wanted, if so we co

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 tagged

Martin Desruisseaux wrote: Jody Garnett a écrit : I have copied trunk over to 2.2.M1 - today being the 24th. I will try and create a release later today ... if needed we may make the release based on your maven 2 process? I would be very happy to make a release using Maven 2! It would have so

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 sanity check

I did not run into any problems making the release: Sanity check welcome: - http://lists.refractions.net/geotools/gt2/geotoos-bin-2.2.M1.zip - http://lists.refractions.net/geotools/gt2/geotoos-javadoc-2.2.M1.zip - http://lists.refractions.net/geotools/gt2/geotoos-src-2.2.M1.zip I will upload the

Re: [Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 tagged

Jody Garnett a écrit : I have copied trunk over to 2.2.M1 - today being the 24th. I will try and create a release later today ... if needed we may make the release based on your maven 2 process? I would be very happy to make a release using Maven 2! It would have some advantages, including a

Re: [Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

Bryce L Nordgren a écrit : - How does my plans to separate all of the interfaces from main work with you need to separate out coverage? Geotools Coverage (as it stand today) is completly independent of any Geotools interfaces to be separated. Coverage currently implements only GeoAPI 2.0 int

Re: [Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

Completely agree with Bryce. There should not be any problems related to stripping out interfaces since the first thing I did when I started working on GridCoverages was to actually use the GeoApi interfaces throughout all the code! Simone. On 10/24/05, Bryce L Nordgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

Re: [Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/24/2005 02:22:24 PM: > Got it, I am simply concerned with manging things right now. I want > everyone to be able to work in the most efficient manner possible. I > understand that Gabriel is out of time for talking and process and is > now working on a branch somew

Re: [Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

simone giannecchini wrote: Hi list, I have been away for away for a while but I have been following the traffic on the ML. Hi Simone! It came out clearly that the support for coverages in GeoTools is somehow still poor for the reasons I summarise below: 1>Plugins should exploit better the ca

Re: [Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

Hi list, I have been away for away for a while but I have been following the traffic on the ML. Let me explain a bit what is going on under the hood. Two weeks ago Bryce and Megan from USFS FireLab came to Italy for a confernce therefore, taking advantage of that, me Alessio and them had a fruitful

[Geotools-devel] Votes by Email

Jody Garnett wrote: Agenda: 1. Vote of Renderer changes (from dblasby) +1 2. Vote of splitting up Main for Coverage (from Martin etc) +1 See split described in jody's email 3. Merge of Aggregate changes (corey) +1 going ahead months of warning given 4. cbrewer followup +1 ext/brewer to

[Geotools-devel] Meeting time

Agenda: 1. Vote of Renderer changes (from dblasby) 2. Vote of splitting up Main for Coverage (from Martin etc) 3. Merge of Aggregate changes (corey) 4. cbrewer followup 5. Justin for postgis module maintainer (additional role next to build meister) 6. Feature Model update from gabriel I kno

[Geotools-devel] 2.2.M1 tagged

Hi Martin, I have copied trunk over to 2.2.M1 - today being the 24th. I will try and create a release later today ... if needed we may make the release based on your maven 2 process? Jody --- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss In

[Geotools-devel] Re: 2.2, new FM and complex

P.Rizzi Ag.Mobilità Ambiente wrote: I can't remember what your plans are for this: will you merge the new FM and the complex stuff into 2.2 BEFORE it reaches a FINAL version Before - I think the FM is the only real big change planned for this round? The stated goal is to sup

Re: [Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

Martin Desruisseaux wrote: I volunter for creating a coverage module (i.e. moving the org.geotools.coverage and org.geotools.image packages, currently in main, to their own module) as suggested in last week Alessio's email, but need a green light from the PMC. Given that I will be away for th

[Geotools-devel] IRC appology

Hi all. This is our last week in State College and the last day before the packers arive to start shipping our stuff out. As you can imagine today is rather chaotic so the changes of me being anywhere near the computer come IRC time are minimal. Next Monday is my first day at work with my new jo

Re: [Geotools-devel] Upcomming renderer changes

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Renderer Changes Here's a few things that I'm planning on doing for the renderer (StreamingRenderer) over the next little while. Please tell me if you disagree with any of this; I plan on seeing this happen on 2.1.x and trunk. 1. (as with a previous

[Geotools-devel] 2.2, new FM and complex

I can't remember what your plans are for this: will you merge the new FM and the complex stuff into 2.2 BEFORE it reaches a FINAL version or will you release 2.2 FINAL and AFTER that will you merge FM and the complex stuff into 2.3 or something??? Obviously I'd pre

[Geotools-devel] Vote for IRC meeting: split coverage?

I volunter for creating a coverage module (i.e. moving the org.geotools.coverage and org.geotools.image packages, currently in main, to their own module) as suggested in last week Alessio's email, but need a green light from the PMC. Given that I will be away for the next week because of the OG

[Geotools-devel] Upcomming renderer changes

Renderer Changes Here's a few things that I'm planning on doing for the renderer (StreamingRenderer) over the next little while. Please tell me if you disagree with any of this; I plan on seeing this happen on 2.1.x and trunk. 1. (as with a previous set of messages "Re: [Geoto

[Geotools-devel] GeoTools Build Report [ 2005/10/23 23:55 ]

GeoTools2 module build report 20051023 gt2:referencing cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED 2356 gt2:main cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED 2359 gt2:shapefile cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED 2359 gt2:indexed-shapefile cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED gt2:graph