Looks like you have done an excellent job on the pull request (docs, test
case and sample data!). If you don't mind signing a CLA it would be
appreciated.
--
Jody Garnett
On 22 May 2015 at 05:15, Peilke, Hendrik wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
>
>
>
> I created a pull request for fixing the issue as talke
Hi Andrea,
I created a pull request for fixing the issue as talked about (but using the
file length to avoid reading an additional header field --> also made a comment
about it, so it can be understood). It also includes a test and updated
documentation. Is it necessary to sign the CLA for this
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Peilke, Hendrik
wrote:
> Hi Andrea,
>
>
>
> that was, what I wanted to suggest (I probably did not explain it that
> good), although I would have read the number of features directly out of
> the header already available inside getBoundsInternal(…). Or is this
Hi Andrea,
that was, what I wanted to suggest (I probably did not explain it that good),
although I would have read the number of features directly out of the header
already available inside getBoundsInternal(…). Or is this bad practice?
Your worry sounds reasonable, but IMHO the current retur
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Peilke, Hendrik
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I have got an empty shape file. If I query the bounds of that shapefile
> through the ShapefileFeatureSource, I get [0,0,0,0] returned, because this
> is what is inside the shapefile header. This confuses GIS programs like
> u
Hi,
I have got an empty shape file. If I query the bounds of that shapefile through
the ShapefileFeatureSource, I get [0,0,0,0] returned, because this is what is
inside the shapefile header. This confuses GIS programs like uDig when a
command like zoom to whole map is issued, because the coordi
