+10 makes sense to me :) On 12/12/12 6:53 AM, "Martin Desruisseaux" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hello all > >I went ahead and renamed the "org.apache.sis.util.type"package as >"org.apache.sis.util.iso". Will not totally true, maybe being 80% true >(or even 95% true if we consider that InternationalString is similar in >purpose to <gmd:textGroup> in ISO 19139) is close enough... > > Thanks for feedbacks, > > Martin > > > >Le 09/12/12 06:04, Adam Estrada a écrit : >> Do you think changing it to something more specific like "utilitytype" >>or "utiltype" would make more sense? I suppose that sis/util/type kind >>of knocks that out but still... >> >> Just thinking out loud here. >> Adam >> >> On Dec 8, 2012, at 4:39 AM, Martin Desruisseaux wrote: >>> The commits in the last few days included: >>> >>> Implementations of interfaces derived from ISO 19103: AbstractName, >>>LocalName, ScopedName, MemberName, TypeName. Unfortunately, those >>>objects are not easy to understand, since the ISO 19103 specification >>>is not very explicit. But they appear in XML documents, so we have to >>>support them in some way... The package javadoc does it best for trying >>>to explain them: >>> >>> >>>https://builds.apache.org/job/sis-jdk7/site/apidocs/org/apache/sis/util/ >>>type/package-summary.html >>> >>> I'm uncomfortable with the "type" package name. The current content is >>>more about naming (indeed, the package name in Geotoolkit.org was >>>"naming"), but with the addition of Type, RecordType, RecordSchema and >>>Record classes from ISO 19103, the package starts looking a bit like >>>the java.lang.Class and Field architecture. I have been unable to find >>>something better than "type" for now, but I would still like to find a >>>better none. >
