Re: [Geotools-devel] rethinking process grouping/categorization

Hi Justin, As the author of the vector to raster bits I'd be happy to see that factory folded into another. It is not separate for any good reason. Michael On 14 August 2012 09:23, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Hi all, > > Recently on the geoserver list a thread was started regarding how processes

Re: [Geotools-devel] Canonical term - Coverage, Grid or Raster?

Hello Martin and all, Since we have a "vector grids" module (gt-grid) my first preference would be the term raster. However, since that is only an unsupported module I'd also be fine with changing "grid" to "lattice" in its code and docs to allow the term grid to be used purely for rasters within

Re: [Geotools-devel] Support for three dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

> Hi Jody, > > Thanks for offering further help with the proposal. Let's irc then. The > deadline would be end of August I guess, but I would really like to commit > the patch this week still. What times are you on irc again? You can grab me after work on thursday; how about: - http://www.time

Re: [Geotools-devel] Canonical term - Coverage, Grid or Raster?

Coverages can also be one dimensional. +1 for raster. On 14/08/12 05:57, Martin Davis wrote: > As part of the process metadata cleanup exercise, it would be nice to > standardize on a single term to use to refer to the data structure > represented by the GridCoverage class. In various contexts w

[Geotools-devel] [jira] (GEOT-4230) Histogram operation does not pass through low, high, numBin parameters

Justin De

Re: [Geotools-devel] Canonical term - Coverage, Grid or Raster?

I would prefer to use the word "raster" as it is inline with user expectations. A grid coverage can be the formal term used by the OGC if you are doing something crazy like serving up a raster via WFS (i.e. a GridCoverage extends a Feature). How about this for consistency: - raster - data store

Re: [Geotools-devel] Canonical term - Coverage, Grid or Raster?

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Martin Davis wrote: > As part of the process metadata cleanup exercise, it would be nice to > standardize on a single term to use to refer to the data structure > represented by the GridCoverage class. In various contexts within GeoTools > this is referred to as a

Re: [Geotools-devel] Process parameter default values and annotations

I thought we had covered this one already? i.e. the fact it was a solid limitation of what annotations can do. However we may be working a bit too hard.. For most basic types (and quite a few others) we have enough information to run our Converters - String value provided by annotation - Targe

[Geotools-devel] rethinking process grouping/categorization

Hi all, Recently on the geoserver list a thread was started regarding how processes in geotools are organized into factories. Long story short the outcome was that a better organization is desired. The organization we currently have is this: factory: GeometryProcessFactory prefix: JTS descriptio

[Geotools-devel] [Hudson] Hudson build is back to normal : geotools-master-jdbc #54

See -- This message is automatically generated by Hudson. For more information on Hudson, see: http://hudson-ci.org/ -- Live Security Virtual Conference Ex

[Geotools-devel] Canonical term - Coverage, Grid or Raster?

As part of the process metadata cleanup exercise, it would be nice to standardize on a single term to use to refer to the data structure represented by the GridCoverage class. In various contexts within GeoTools this is referred to as a "coverage", a "grid", and a "raster". External to GeoTools I

[Geotools-devel] [Hudson] Build failed in Hudson: geotools-master-jdbc #53

See -- [...truncated 1368 lines...] at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597) at org.apache.maven.surefire.util.ReflectionUtils.invokeMethodWithArray(ReflectionUtils.j

[Geotools-devel] [jira] (GEOT-4229) Joining more than two tables results in mismatching attributes

Robin Pra

[Geotools-devel] [jira] (GEOT-4228) WMS Style Legend URL is not read when the Style has an Abstract

H R

[Geotools-devel] [Hudson] Hudson build is back to normal : geotools-master-jdbc #52

See -- This message is automatically generated by Hudson. For more information on Hudson, see: http://hudson-ci.org/ -- Live Security Virtual Conference Ex

[Geotools-devel] [jira] (GEOT-4227) Allow to specify a default value in DescribeProcess

Andrea Aime

Re: [Geotools-devel] Process parameter default values and annotations

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Andrea Aime > wrote: > >> Hi, >> I was looking into ways to get the default values for process parameters >> in the annotations >> and found out that it's not possible, because an annotation parameter

Re: [Geotools-devel] Process parameter default values and annotations

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > Hi, > I was looking into ways to get the default values for process parameters > in the annotations > and found out that it's not possible, because an annotation parameter can > only > be a Class, primitive, String or an array of those... > Bum

[Geotools-devel] Process parameter default values and annotations

Hi, I was looking into ways to get the default values for process parameters in the annotations and found out that it's not possible, because an annotation parameter can only be a Class, primitive, String or an array of those... Bummer! Maybe a way to get default values anyways could be to annotat

[Geotools-devel] [jira] (GEOT-4227) Allow to specify a default value in DescribeProcess

Andrea Ai

Re: [Geotools-devel] Support for three dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

Hi Jody, Thanks for offering further help with the proposal. Let's irc then. The deadline would be end of August I guess, but I would really like to commit the patch this week still. What times are you on irc again? Thanks Niels On 08/12/2012 04:00 PM, Jody Garnett wrote: Cool catching up ag

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Niels Charlier wrote: > >> The method in ReferencedEnvelope3D uses the 2D transforming method, only > looking at the first 2 dimensions, and getting a 2D envelope back, but then > just restores the third coordinate so it stays the same and actually does > return

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

Hi Andrea, Thank you for your time! On 08/12/2012 04:09 PM, Andrea Aime wrote: > There is a mix of things that confuse me a bit here: > * the method in the transformation is purely 2D anyways, you won't get > a 3D envelope out of it (it samples the 2D perimeter of the original > bounds > to