Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>> Please don't add a layer.dispose() method, resources to be disposed
>> are harder to use so let's limit the usage of dispose/close methods
>> to cases where it's really necessary to do so (file, streams,
>> database connections and so on). Swing does not have a "dispose(
On 14/06/10 13:30, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> If you can replace all instances of FeatureSourceMapLayer with
> DefaultMapLayer without
> having to instanceof/cast, then it can be removed.
Let me go further: if you can do this, the class *should* be removed. It
was really an interim workaround,
On 09/06/10 22:37, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Ben I notice you have a FeatureSourceMapLayer - I don't think this is needed
> after the refactor; but I have no good way of testing.
Jody, I suspect you are right. This class was introduced as part of the
refactoring to support the DataAccess API. I have
Thanks for the feedback Andrea! Some comments inline...
On 14/06/2010, at 6:18 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Map -> "really bad name" (tm), we should not clash with
> java own classes (yes, packages keep them apart,
> but code completion gets confusing)
Agreed.
Solution - I am thinkin
Hi,
I'm skimming through the proposal quickly and noting down
the things that do look odd.
Premise: the work looks sound and should clean up things
significantly. I like it, past some issues I'm going to
list in this mail.
Map -> "really bad name" (tm), we should not clash with
java own
On 14/06/2010, at 1:31 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
>> Correct; I would phrase it as. When true we assume that DMS entries
>> are understood to be represented as decimal degrees; this assumption
>> is shared by many applications but may not be correct for your
>> dataset. When false we carefully do not a
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>> Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>> b) alternatively, add a flag to control the DMS/degree
>> behavior.
> I would prefer to add a flag; even if the default value is
> true.
Cool. Any reasoning behind the preference?
>>> Yeah; we are making an assumption - I
> Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> b) alternatively, add a flag to control the DMS/degree behavior.
I would prefer to add a flag; even if the default value is true.
>>> Cool. Any reasoning behind the preference?
>> Yeah; we are making an assumption - I would like the ability for users to
>> mak
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
b) alternatively, add a flag to control the DMS/degree behavior.
>>> I would prefer to add a flag; even if the default value is true.
>> Cool. Any reasoning behind the preference?
>
> Yeah; we are making an assumption - I would like the ability for users to
> make th
>>> b) alternatively, add a flag to control the DMS/degree behavior.
>> I would prefer to add a flag; even if the default value is true.
>
> Cool. Any reasoning behind the preference?
Yeah; we are making an assumption - I would like the ability for users to make
the assumption the other way if
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> On 13/06/2010, at 5:19 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
>
>> My guess is that anybody using a CRS with DMS unit is actually storing
>> the data in decimal deegrees, and that providing actual support for
>> the DMS unit transformation would just result in confused users.
>>
>> 2150
> Wanted to introduce you to Crag from the uDig project - who cheerfully asked
> me how geotools / osgi relationship was going. When he last checked in Harald
> was working on it (but as you saw on that page Harald left instructions and
> thus nothing has happened).
Sorry, I'm kind of busy righ
On 13/06/2010, at 5:19 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> My guess is that anybody using a CRS with DMS unit is actually storing
> the data in decimal deegrees, and that providing actual support for
> the DMS unit transformation would just result in confused users.
>
> 2150 is one of such codes, if I look
Okay I sorted out a good way forwards and should be able to commit when Andrea
is ready. Going to pull the same trick used for Query; make MapContext an
actual class; which DefaultMapContext can extend. Does not really solve our
naming issue but does improve readability.
Jody
On 13/06/2010, at
Hi,
there's an issue with the EPSG database that has been bothering
me for quite some time: the DMS unit.
The EPSG guidance defines the DMS unit as follow:
--
To allow coordinate operation parameter values given by their
infor
15 matches
Mail list logo
