On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> A datastore would be fine by me; if so it would be good not to roll it into
> gt-data. I just finished reviewing ContentDataStore; so I can confirm there
> is a quick and easy base class to start from.
Nothing prevents the grid classes to be
A datastore would be fine by me; if so it would be good not to roll it into
gt-data. I just finished reviewing ContentDataStore; so I can confirm there is
a quick and easy base class to start from.
--
Jody Garnett
On Sunday, 17 April 2011 at 6:22 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Michael Bedward
wrote:
> Cool ! Looking at the docs now.
>
> Yes, it would be great to promote it and merging it into gt-data
> sounds like a good idea. I think you and/or Andrea had suggested it
> would be better if re-written to stream features on demand rather t
Hi Jody,
> So this would be an API addition so you should bang up a proposal page; on
> the bright side the page can link to the existing docs and should be quick
> to write up?
Yes it should be easy-peasy.
> But yes I would be all for moving this into supported (by virtue of merging
> with gt-d
So this would be an API addition so you should bang up a proposal page; on the
bright side the page can link to the existing docs and should be quick to write
up?
But yes I would be all for moving this into supported (by virtue of merging
with gt-data).
You seem to have all the needed bits:
-
Thanks Jody. Well, in that case perhaps it's ready for a proposal to
merge it into gt-data on trunk so that at least the basic stuff that
is there becomes more visible. What do you think ?
I've just done a few edits to the docs. I'd forgotten what was there
and it was a pleasant surprise to find m
It could of been either of us; if it is possible it would allow people to work
with massive grids without wasting memory.
However that is a change you could do behind the scenes - as as long as people
only ever get a FeaureCollection from you they won't have to care how you
implement iterator()
Ah, just after posting that question I see there is a comment at the
front of the docs about FeatureIterator :)
On 17 April 2011 10:55, Michael Bedward wrote:
> Cool ! Looking at the docs now.
>
> Yes, it would be great to promote it and merging it into gt-data
> sounds like a good idea. I think
Cool ! Looking at the docs now.
Yes, it would be great to promote it and merging it into gt-data
sounds like a good idea. I think you and/or Andrea had suggested it
would be better if re-written to stream features on demand rather than
create them up front. Do you remember ?
Michael
On 16 April
