Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Jody Garnett wrote:
>> Some initial feedback ...
>>
>> The following packages no longer exist (uDig was explicitly exporting
>> them):
>> - org.geotools.coverage.io
>> - org.geotools.data.coverage.grid.file
>> - org.geotools.data.coverage.grid.stream
> Here are some bro
Ciao Jody,
yeah that's me :-).
Whenever we talked about these classes everybody was saying that nobody was
using them hence I
proposed to just remove them. without moving them to coverage. If we want to
strictly follow the
guidelines there is no problem we can restore these classes in the coverag
sounds perfect for me Saul, go ahead and thanks for taking up on this.
Gabriel.
On Tuesday 27 February 2007 22:29, Farber, Saul (ENV) wrote:
> Hey gabriel (and anyone else interested),
>
> I'm finally getting trunk-on-trunk set up, and the first thing on my agenda
> is to bring the 2.4.x arcsde p
Ciao Jody,
I updated the pages
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Cleaning+up+dependencies+between+various+modules+and+coverage
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Upgrade+to+2.4
Let me know what you think about it.
Thx,
Simone.
---
Well..., I studied Computer Science at UNICEN (Argentina)
http://www.unicen.edu.ar.
I was progressing in my career solving software architectural problems for
different business (maritime ports, hospitals, stock market, grains trading,
bank, etc).
The programming in the large issues attrap m
Hi,
it took me some time to gather the energy to respond, so sorry both for the
delay and for the large message.
On Friday 23 February 2007 00:17, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Hi Gabriel -
>
> I always find that discussions of FM are best handled on the GeoAPI list
> - in least in terms of feedback.
>
>
Hi ran into problems when dealing with feature construction or attribute type
evaluation and supertypes.
basically I need supertypes to be taken in count both by AttributeBuilder and
by Xpath over AttributeTypes. That is not happening right now, so when
constructing a feature with AttributeBuild
Gabriel Roldán wrote:
> Hi ran into problems when dealing with feature construction or attribute type
> evaluation and supertypes.
> basically I need supertypes to be taken in count both by AttributeBuilder and
> by Xpath over AttributeTypes. That is not happening right now, so when
> constructi
Andrea Aime a écrit :
> Afaik org.geotools.coverage.io became org.geotools.coverage.grid.io.
The package name changed? I though that the work was just about moving
"org.geotools.coverage.io" out of "coverage" module, in a new plugin module? I
didn't know that a package name change was planned in t
Cory Horner a écrit :
> Can anyone confirm the correct version of ImageIO? The wiki says 1.1,
> but i'm skeptical. If I recall correctly, 1.1 won't work with geotools
> 2.2.
I don't remember for Geotools 2.2. But ImageIO 1.1 together with JAI 1.1.3 work
with Geotools 2.4-SNAPSHOT on my side...
Ciao Martin,
there might be a little confusion here, but don't worry, I have not renamed
anything you are using :-), I know you are relying on these classes for
SeaGis ( I catually was looking at it a couple of hours ago,
is there some support for hdf somewhere in there? I am playing with hdf
these
Jan Jezek a écrit :
> I think that making provider and think up a wkt definition for RubberSheeting
> would by easiest. Maybe (in most general case) the wkt should simply contains
> just coordinates of MappedPositions that defines RubberSheeting conversion
> and also some hint that will express
Previous releases were of the form "2.2-M0". The numbering were changed to the
"2.3.0-M0" form for 2.3 only, because it was the default numbering scheme for
"maven release". If we abandon the "maven release" procedure, should we go back
to a "2.4-M0" scheme? Rational is:
* Preserve alphabetical or
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ->To: Geotools-Devel list >From: Jody Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: 02/27/2007 05:59PM>Subject: [Geotools-devel] Geometry unsupport module pages ...>>Questions:>Byrce: can I kill the branch/jts-wrapper now? Is there anything else >over the
Hi all (hi Justin),
trying to spot why Geoserver did return only integral
coordinates I looked at the xml-gml2 module and the
rest of the family..
Now, I see the various bindings do have a parse method,
but do not have a simmetric "encode" one... oh hum, who's
writing out the XML? toString via EMF
Encoding is there, however many of the bindings dont support it yet
since it kind of came after the fact. Look at the ComplexBinding
interface to get the details of the api: encode() and getProperty() methods.
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Hi all (hi Justin),
> trying to spot why Geoserver did return only
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>> Now, I see the various bindings do have a parse method,
>> but do not have a simmetric "encode" one... oh hum, who's
>> writing out the XML? toString via EMF?
> I had to stub it on ABstractComplexBinding since it came after the fact,
> i didn't feel like updating h
>Maybe something like:
>
>PARAM_MT["RubberSheet",
> PARAMETER["src_1", 10.0, 5.0],
> PARAMETER["tgt_1", 10.3, 5.2],
> PARAMETER["src_2", 8.0, 4.0],
> PARAMETER["tgt_2", 8.2, 4.3],
> etc...]
>
>Alternative:
>
>PARAM_MT["RubberSheet",
> PARAMETER["point_mapping", 10.0, 5.0, 10.3, 5.2],
> PAR
I recall your email about events - and we did talk about it.
I don't mind if you grab it - but you will need to keep the reivew.txt
file good (can we fork and redistribute under LGPL?)
Cheers,
Jody
Bryce L Nordgren wrote:
> Working from home today. Dialup painful. Will update repo tomorrow
>
Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Gabriel Roldán wrote:
>
>> Hi ran into problems when dealing with feature construction or attribute
>> type
>> evaluation and supertypes.
>> basically I need supertypes to be taken in count both by AttributeBuilder
>> and
>> by Xpath over AttributeTypes. That is no
Hi Jody, all all,
thanks for you sensible answers. I will try to adress them. See below.
> We want a standard contract between client code (ie style) and server
> code (data provider), we cannot do something open ended here as data
> providers have different abilities.
Correct, and agreed. See
Rob Atkinson wrote:
> Justin Deoliveira wrote:
>> Gabriel Roldán wrote:
>>
>>> Hi ran into problems when dealing with feature construction or attribute
>>> type
>>> evaluation and supertypes.
>>> basically I need supertypes to be taken in count both by AttributeBuilder
>>> and
>>> by Xpath o
22 matches
Mail list logo
