I really don't mind using Git either as long as SVN doesn't completely go away. I am more of a SVN fan anyway...Are we able to run them at the same time in a mirrored mode?
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (398J) < [email protected]> wrote: > Hey Travis, > > I would strongly urge you to do development on Apache SIS on Apache > hardware. > Github is great; and convenience. But when you commit there, we don't get > email notifications and so forth here and the community loses out (and we > lose > out) on having email records; archives, and other things here that show > work > is going on in SIS. > > I have a simple proposal :) You guys are definitely more Git fans now than > SVN fans. Martin D when he originally came onto the project wanted to use > Git, and was more familiar with it, but took great effort to adopt SVN b/c > ASF support for Git at that time was quite limited. > > However, with you here now; with Adam; with Martin; and with a number of > other folks contributing (Joe W. are you a Git guy?) that are Git fans, > it's worth revisiting this discussion. However, *after* 0.3 :) Let's > release > that using SVN so we don't hold that off anymore. After 0.3 maybe we can > move to Git if this discussion is favorable. Apache now supports writeable > Git repos (see http://git.apache.org/) and the project's canonical > repository > can be Git. We can still mirror to Github, etc., but the bits (and really > the > work) ought to be happening here at the ASF. > > So, discuss please :) FWIW, I'm +1 to move to Git (after 0.3). > > Cheers, > Chris > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: [email protected] > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Travis L Pinney <[email protected]> > Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:31 AM > To: dev <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: shapefile branch > > >Good to know about the OGC/ISO interfaces. > > > >It would make sense to apply processing to NetCDF, Shapefile, Mbtiles > >files > >etc. I can set up in another code repo on github. The reason I want to > >work > >on that concurrently is to stress test the existing library with lots of > >data to find bugs that may not appear with simple unit tests. > > > > > > > >Thanks, > >Travis > > > > > > > > > > > >On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Martin Desruisseaux < > >[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Le 20/06/13 12:47, Travis L Pinney a écrit : > >> > >> The java.util.Map is fairly basic now. An improvement could be a > >>feature > >>> class that has a map of <String, DataType>, where DataType corresponds > >>>to > >>> the appropriate DataType ( > >>> > >>>http://www.clicketyclick.dk/**databases/xbase/format/data_**types.html > <h > >>>ttp://www.clicketyclick.dk/databases/xbase/format/data_types.html> > >>> .) > >>> Currently I am converting everything to strings. > >>> > >> > >> Actually Feature, FeatureType and related interfaces derived from > >>OGC/ISO > >> standards (in particular GML - Geographic Markup Language - schemas) are > >> already provided in GeoAPI: > >> > >> http://www.geoapi.org/**snapshot/pending/org/opengis/** > >> > >>feature/package-summary.html< > http://www.geoapi.org/snapshot/pending/org/o > >>pengis/feature/package-summary.html> > >> > >> This is in the "pending" part of GeoAPI, so we have room for revising > >> them, in particular make sure that they are still in agreement with > >>latest > >> OGC/ISO standards. Then we would need to provide an implementation in > >>SIS, > >> porting Geotk classes when possible or appropriate. However there is a > >> somewhat long road before we reach that point, so it seems to me that > >>your > >> current approach (String in java.util.Map) is good in the main time. > >> > >> > >> > >> The bulk ingests would be an api where you can call a jar file from > >>> hadoop, > >>> give it appropriate directory to pull shapefiles in HDFS, and it would > >>> process each shapefile per mapper. The first ingest I am working on is > >>>a > >>> transformation of points to a 2D-histogram to get an idea of density of > >>> features of all the shapefiles. This could be extended to have > >>>different > >>> types of outputs (store in a database or more efficient format on hdfs) > >>> > >> > >> I would suggest to separate the two tasks. I think that the above is > >>what > >> we call a "processing", which is the subject of (yet an other) OGC > >> standard. Processing and DataStore should be independent, i.e. someone > >>may > >> want to apply the above processing on NetCDF files too... Maybe we can > >> focus on ShapefileStore first, and revisit processing later? Processings > >> will need DataStores first in order to perform their work anyway... > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >
