Martin and Travis, It is true that the Shapefile is very widely used but it has lots and lots of limitations. The main one that I can think of is that it can't handle UTF-encoded characters in the attribute table. Can I suggest maybe working towards something like an "interchange" module where all the file formats live? For vector data, there are quite a few of them out there. OGR references many of them [1] but that opens the debate on whether or not to just use GDAL. I suppose we could just have GDAL support as a module which would require some sort of JNI bindings to work in a pure Java library like SIS. What are your thoughts on this?
Adam [1] http://www.gdal.org/ogr/ogr_formats.html On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Martin Desruisseaux < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Travis > > Thanks for the update. > > Le 25/08/13 18:26, Travis L Pinney a écrit : > > The last thing needed is to switch to the new DefaultFeature in >> sis-feature. I am not sure how to import this currently. Any ideas on >> doing >> this? >> > > Just adding a dependency in the pom.xml should work: > > <dependency> > <groupId>org.apache.sis.core</**groupId> > <artifactId>sis-feature</**artifactId> > <version>${project.version}</**version> > </dependency> > > The API is currently identical to the original class on the Shapefile > branch, if I remember correctly. I hope to start working on Feature next > week, but it should not prevent us from porting Shapefile to the trunk in > parallel. > > Given that I presume that Shapefile will be a very widely used format, I > wonder if we should port it straight to the "sis-storage" module, without > creating a "sis-shapefile" module on trunk? The intend is to keep the > amount of modules reasonably low, with a "core" part and some extensions. > It seems to me that Shapefile could be part of "core". What do you think? > > Martin > >
