I’m for alternative 1 thanks Martin ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 4/5/16, 12:34 PM, "Martin Desruisseaux" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello all > >With Johann working on the GPX format, a question is which (if any) >naming convention to use for storage modules (i.e. modules that read and >write some file formats). Currently there is none; the only stores are: > >Names alternative 1: > * sis-netcdf > * sis-shapefile > >We could prefix with "sis-store-" like below: > >Names alternative 2: > * sis-store-netcdf > * sis-store-shapefile > >We could also be more specific by separating the store in 3 categories: >those reading features ("sis-feature-"), those reading coverages >("sis-coverage-"), and those that get the data from a distant machine >through web services ("sis-client-"): > >Names alternative 3: > * sis-coverage-netcdf > * sis-feature-shapefile > >However one issue with alternative 3 is that some formats does not fit >entirely in any category. For example NetCDF can be used for both >coverages and features. > >Alternatives 2 and 3 would impacts users of those modules since they >would need to change their dependency in the pom.xml file. > >Does anyone has a preference for the module naming convention? (for now >my own personal preference would be alternative 2, but I'm not sure) > > Martin >
