Jody Garnett a écrit :
> Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>> Thats fine for me. Maybe GeoTools doesn't need to be always
>> compilable against the latest GeoAPI SVN, as long as it compiles
>> against the latest snapshot deployed on the maven repository.
>>
> You are correct Martin; I was not even go
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Thats fine for me. Maybe GeoTools doesn't need to be always compilable
> against
> the latest GeoAPI SVN, as long as it compiles against the latest snapshot
> deployed on the maven repository.
>
You are correct Martin; I was not even going to annoy the geotools li
Andrea you are correct; GeoAPI looks like it will be in a state of flux;
we should watch a specific snashot for now; or tag the work.
Eclesia started looking at the SE1.1 specification which contains some
additional functionality for Function (basically a default value if
an implementation of th
Andrea Aime a écrit :
> Yet changing the gt2 api in response to a screwup in GeoApi is not the
> proper answer imho. GeoApi rollback or switching to an earlier version
> of GeoApi look like a more promising path (especially the first).
Thats fine for me. Maybe GeoTools doesn't need to be always c
Martin Desruisseaux ha scritto:
> Andrea Aime a écrit :
>> Sigh, that's why I asked for a proposal for the geoapi stuff...
>> this way you're going to break GT2 api without the proper process,
>> which is not acceptable.
>
> Andrea, this method has not be introduced neither by me, Cédric or
> Joh
Andrea Aime a écrit :
> Sigh, that's why I asked for a proposal for the geoapi stuff...
> this way you're going to break GT2 api without the proper process,
> which is not acceptable.
Andrea, this method has not be introduced neither by me, Cédric or Johan. None
of us touched to this Function int
Andrea Aime a écrit :
> Martin Desruisseaux ha scritto:
>
>> Its look like that a new method has been added in the Function interface
>> (see attached diff), and GeoTools implementation do not yet implement it.
>>
>> Given that the documentation in the returns tag said "Optional", I
>> assume
Martin Desruisseaux ha scritto:
> Its look like that a new method has been added in the Function interface
> (see attached diff), and GeoTools implementation do not yet implement it.
>
> Given that the documentation in the returns tag said "Optional", I
> assume that it is okay to just implement
Its look like that a new method has been added in the Function interface (see
attached diff), and GeoTools implementation do not yet implement it.
Given that the documentation in the returns tag said "Optional", I assume that
it is okay to just implement them as "return null" in GeoTools.
I'm going back to revision 1190 of GeoAPI in order to have a build of
Geotools.
It seems it wasn't the good time for me to update my GeoAPI sources :)
Cédric.
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conferen
Hi everyone,
this morning, I've done an update of GeoAPI and build it.
Then I've done an update on Geotools, and the build is broken for me in
the main module, around filter.
Please see http://rafb.net/p/OYlcZw66.html.
Maybe some changes on GeoAPI haven't yet been adapted on Geotools, it
seems s
11 matches
Mail list logo
