Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
Following Jody email
I looked at the coverage branch last week, but I had a hard time to
get usefull information from "svn diff" since it produces too much
output. I would like to try the following:
svn diff http://svn.geotools.org/geotools/trunk/gt/
http://svn.geotools.org/geotools/branches/coverages_branch/trunk/gt/
But I currently get a change for every files, because of some changes
like the addition of $URL$ keyword. Can we do one of the following
(when Simone or Bryce would have a little bit of time of course)?
1) Just explain (in plain text) where are the main changes applied
on coverages in coverage_branch
or
2) Synchronize the coverage_branch with the trunk (using "svn merge"
from trunk to the branch) so the above-cited "svn diff" command
can get less verbose.
Also, I would like a road map for merging coverages_branch to trunk.
Are their any deadlines involved here? I know the feature model work for
geoserver work is on a timeline ...
I would like to take the approach suggested by Jody: do not submit the
org.opengis.coverage interfaces to OGC before we tested at least one
implementation (Geotools in our case) of it.
I think I asked for two implementations (so I had some assurance that
the api represented a compromise), but perhaps that is being greedy.
Still sticking the JOSSIM bindings behind the same api would make me
feel a lot safer for the future.
This means that we should try to get a stable org.opengis.coverage
interfaces for the end of February, but we would probably not submit
them to the OGC meeting in March;
I get the impression from bryce that this is waiting behind feature
model improvements (for opperations).
we would just inform peoples there that those interfaces exist, are
available for discussion and we are testing them in the Geotools
implementation. If the Geotools implementation work well with those
interfaces (we would leave them in some geoapi-pending.jar), then we
would submit them officially to the OGC meeting after the next one. In
the main time, I would tune the Geotools build in order to make it use
the geoapi-pending.jar file.
What do you think?
I would like to follow the same path for the Feature Model revision (I
also don't have the heart to ask you guys to talk a working group
meeting through what is going on ;-) ).
Jody
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
