I do not mind either way; 2.5.x is safe and it would not take a moment to
update 2.6. Your call Martin (or perhaps the call of the geoapi list).
I see the geoapi list is included in this thread; the breakdown seems
sensible - it gives the WG something specific to review and still gives a
home work
Hello Jody
Jody Garnett a écrit :
> Your example answered my question; as far as I know:
> - GeoTools 2.5 uses a specific milestone release of GeoAPI-2.2.
> - GeoTools 2.6 can make the change you describe above
Actually at Andrea's suggestion I increased the version number to 2.3, so
GeoTools (b
I think I must of dropped off the geoapi list; and had missed this
anouncement? :-( Oh you anounced it just last week - so I was sick and
missed it.
Thanks for cross posting.
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:44 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <
[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm posting this email
Hello Rob
Rob Atkinson a écrit :
> it would be great for the current round of development to be able to
> propose changes if needed to the realtively-new-and-untested ISO
> Feature interfaces in a more flexible environment than the stable
> components.
I hope that leaving those interfaces in the
Hello Ben
Ben Caradoc-Davies a écrit :
> Martin, we would very much like to change GeoAPI so that it can support
> XSD complexType with simpleContent. At the moment, we are stuck with an
> Ugly Hack: smuggling the simple content in a fake property. I am yet to
> write the encoder to unpack this
Rob Atkinson wrote:
> it would be great for the current round of development to be able to
> propose changes if needed to the realtively-new-and-untested ISO
> Feature interfaces in a more flexible environment than the stable
> components.
Martin, we would very much like to change GeoAPI so that i
+1 Martin,
it would be great for the current round of development to be able to
propose changes if needed to the realtively-new-and-untested ISO
Feature interfaces in a more flexible environment than the stable
components.
"Governance right-sizing" is a Good Thing.
rob
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1
Andrea Aime a écrit :
> Given the kind of change it seems sensible to pop up the number to 2.3?
Yes I had some hesitation but its look like preferable.
> In many ways this seems to represent the beginning of a different way of
> managing GeoApi, from consesus based on a mailing list to something
Martin Desruisseaux ha scritto:
> I'm posting this email on the GeoTools mailing list in case peoples missing
> it
> from the GeoAPI mailing list.
>
> Last week, I posted an annoucement saying that I was planning to split GeoAPI
> in
> two modules. I waited one week in case someone would objec
I'm posting this email on the GeoTools mailing list in case peoples missing it
from the GeoAPI mailing list.
Last week, I posted an annoucement saying that I was planning to split GeoAPI
in
two modules. I waited one week in case someone would object. Since I got no
objection, I plan to process
10 matches
Mail list logo
