There is some code in OpenJUMP that "listens" for child components to
be added to the Workbench in order to detect when a Task has been
added. I think this is likely a violation of the "separation of GUI
and model" principle. (Unless we view a task solely as a GUI
component.)
I wonder if there wou
Thanks for the info Stefan, Martin, and Paul.
As Martin mentioned, there is no timeline for JTS 2.0, but I think we
should at least keep that integration task on the effort, as it sounds
like it will break some things.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On Jan 7, 2008 12:00 PM, Paul Austin <[EMAIL PROTECTED
I just upgraded my open jump to 1.9-RC6 and there was only one compile
time issue due to a class being moved to a different package.
Haven't done any runtime tests yet.
Paul
Stefan Steiniger wrote:
> we use 1.7 (2?)
>
> but we will switch to 1.9 - as it contains a couple of interesting features.
The tentative plan for JTS 2.0 is that it will appear when some change
is made which *really* breaks backwards compatibility. The main
candidate for this right now is moving to using Geometry interfaces,
rather than concrete classes.
There's no timeline for this yet.
As for JTS 1.9, I'd reco
we use 1.7 (2?)
but we will switch to 1.9 - as it contains a couple of interesting features.
i don't know which plans has Martin with JTS 2.0 - I haven't seen
something on jts 2.0 yet
stefan
Sunburned Surveyor schrieb:
> Martin's release of JTS 1.9 got me to thinking about our plans for
> inte
Martin's release of JTS 1.9 got me to thinking about our plans for
integrating OpenJUMP with new versions of JTS. Do we have any plans
for keeping OpenJUMP integrated with the latest versions of this
library. It seems like JTS is a critical dependency, and that this
would be prudent of us.
Is anyo
