I still think that one of the wfs modules makes more sense. Especially
if gt-xml is a deprecated module?
On 10-06-02 9:22 AM, Gabriel Roldan wrote:
> On 6/2/10 3:16 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> Reviewing gt-xml; it is very much non core.
> agreed
> >It is simply collecting the first generation gt
On 6/2/10 3:16 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Reviewing gt-xml; it is very much non core.
agreed
>It is simply collecting the first generation gtxml parser design (for
>some reason I though that the SLDParser and others were here (instead
>they are still in main).
I would ideally move it to unsuppor
Reviewing gt-xml; it is very much non core. It is simply collecting the first
generation gtxml parser design (for some reason I though that the SLDParser and
others were here (instead they are still in main).
So that leaves me running in circles...
Idea:
- move gt-xml to extension/xml (allowing
After friendly IRC chat with Gabriel...
Looks like asking gt-xml to take on the task is the best way forward; it offers
a central spot for GML handling that other modules can use.
My strategy will be to review the wps parser configuration (where it is
configured with with both GML2 and GML3 all
