Hi Jody, that's the GeoApi specification no?
At first we would be using it on the GWT client we where hoping to also include curves, as those can be directly drawn in SVG/VML. At a later stage we could switch the backend to make use of it as well. Jody, you have been looking into creating you own Geometry library for some time now I understand. How would you approach this? I was hoping to start with something simple, that can grow at it's own pace. Important for me is that I can use the same objects on both client and server (meaning Java with some GWT restrictions). I am also afraid to be re-inventing the wheel, but using 2 different libraries on client and server would be a shame when using GWT... 2011/7/13 Jody Garnett <jody.garn...@gmail.com> > There is a third model; the ISO19107 model that deals with a few more > things; it is however object oriented in nature.... > > -- > Jody Garnett > > On Wednesday, 13 July 2011 at 6:36 PM, Pieter De Graef wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > for the Geomajas project, we are looking into separating the Geometry > functionality into an independent project. In other words, I am talking > about a Geometry project for the Web. This code would be written in Java for > GWT and thus be available on Java backends as well as client environments > (we intend to add a JavaScript wrapper around the GWT code). > > Now the problem that I'm facing here, is which model to follow.... > > On one hand there is the Simple Feature Specification which is clearly an > Object Oriented model with the advantage that it is well known but is also > more difficult to implement the JavaScript wrapper around. > > On the other hand we could follow a service based model (more like SFS for > SQL) which is easier to get up and running, easier to create a JavaScript > wrapper for and easier to translate into web services. > > As it's difficult for us to chose and as it's a pretty crucial decision for > the future of the Geomajas project, I as wondering how you guys feel about > this. > > Kind regards, > > Pieter De Graef > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
