Sounds great !
My email suggested doing "class name.field" as well as converters. I think
you could get away with making that a converter for the same effect.
Give it a go.
--
Jody Garnett
On 15/08/2012, at 4:05 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> No
On 08/14/2012 03:46 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
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 thu
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> Non trivial processes tend to have complex input parameters, beans instead
> of common "primitives"
> (to be interpreted in a lax way, e.g., Date as a primitive too), such as
> ranges, lists of values.
>
> I'm tempted to just go the way to sug
Great, sounds like a clear consensus for using Raster. Also good to have
Jody's clarification of "raster" versus "image" - this is something I
puzzled over while documenting the various recent rendering transformations
@Andrea, all I'm talking about now is changing the metadata documentation
to u
Justin De
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> I guess I prefer this approach the best, without GeoServer prefixes in the
>> mix.
>> Do we also want to move the classes to another package that is not .gs
>> something?
>>
>
> Yeah, I think that make sense. I was thinking that we could
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
>
>> C. Categorization based on "space" (raster vs vector). Geometry would
>> remain the same and those processes that both input/output as vector would
>> remain in the vector catego
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> I thought we had covered this one already? i.e. the fact it was a solid
> limitation of what annotations can do.
>
I don't remember we did, but that's not a problem
>
> However we may be working a bit too hard..
>
> For most basic types (a
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> C. Categorization based on "space" (raster vs vector). Geometry would
> remain the same and those processes that both input/output as vector would
> remain in the vector category and those that have both input/output as
> raster would rem
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:57 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
