Richard Gould a écrit :
Looks like it might be a more serious problem, but likely related to
connection issues (that is manifesting itself as a
NullPointerException). Likely the server changed.
These kinds of changes shouldn't take down the test cases.
I'll have a look into it shortly.
Than
Looks like it might be a more serious problem, but likely related to
connection issues (that is manifesting itself as a
NullPointerException). Likely the server changed.
These kinds of changes shouldn't take down the test cases.
I'll have a look into it shortly.
Cheers,
Richard
Martin Desru
Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
Bryce we have a lot of positive experience with EMF, it should do you
just fine. At its heart EMF has EClass and EObject which are similar in
spirit to the featureType and Feature constructs (aka they both are
forming a dynamic type system).
Yup. Good to hear that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/23/2006 10:15:45 AM:
> Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
>
> > [Bunch of crap]
> >
> Bryce we have a lot of positive experience with EMF, it should do you
> just fine. At its heart EMF has EClass and EObject which are similar in
> spirit to the featureType and Feature constr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 01/23/2006 09:10:48 AM:
> simone giannecchini wrote:
>
> >>as well, but I think in our context is more correct say that feature
> >>are both that same level as well as above coverages. As an instance,
> >>in the Geoserver we develop we render coverages wrapping them in
Excellent diagram! ;)
Just curious: is "data" meant to be "in-memory data" or "persisted data"
it's pretty far away from the plugins if it means "data-file". Perhaps a
small clarification is necessary as "data" exists in various forms all over
the diagram.
Also, metdata at the top is misspelled.
Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
This is a document precipitated because I don't understand the
inter-feature relationship under the TC/211 model, which is what the
coverage schema in 19123 is based on. In essence, it explores how to model
features with software to provide uniform access to attributes,
simone giannecchini wrote:
as well, but I think in our context is more correct say that feature
are both that same level as well as above coverages. As an instance,
in the Geoserver we develop we render coverages wrapping them inside a
feature, in order to follow strictly the specification.
On 1/23/06, Jody Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> simone giannecchini wrote:
>
> >aehm, the attachement was not... attched!
> >
> >Simone.
> >
> >On 1/23/06, simone giannecchini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi guys, i would like to know what do you think about the attached
> >>drawing
simone giannecchini wrote:
aehm, the attachement was not... attched!
Simone.
On 1/23/06, simone giannecchini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi guys, i would like to know what do you think about the attached
drawing. I have been asked to write something about geotools and
geoserver and this wil
Hi guys, i would like to know what do you think about the attached
drawing. I have been asked to write something about geotools and
geoserver and this will part of the complete stack.
SImone
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do
GeoTools2 module build report 20060122
gt2:referencing cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED 2359
gt2:sample-data cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED
gt2:coverage cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED 0001
gt2:api cleaned, compiled, tested, INSTALLED 0001
gt2:main cleaned,
12 matches
Mail list logo
