Jody Garnett wrote: > Justin Deoliveira wrote: >> So looking down the pipe at a major api shift ( fm ), we are already >> planning for another ( data )? How do we sell this api change? From a >> client point of view I can see the advantage, but what does it buy >> others besides another layer of abstraction. >> > This is doing the prep work for the one major api shift (fm); one of the > problems you poked a hole in was the use of typeName, Jesse is finding > problems on the other side of things (info, accuracy, handling events). > GridCoverage people have also been asking how they can be integrated ... Well the api impact of adding namespace qualified names is *a lot* less then what this proposes. We can do it with the current api, not create a new one. >> From a GeoServer point of view the only gain I would see is if the grid >> coverage guys see this as a useful abstraction. I don't know enough >> about that part of the code base to comment really. Hopefully simboss >> can provide some feedback as well. >> > Justin perhaps you want to look at the GridCoverage example available in > the code base - the same one I am asking simboss for feedback on. > Earlier feedback the better. > Fair enough. > Cheers, > Jody > > !DSPAM:1004,457dfdc1194322223018498! >
-- Justin Deoliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Open Planning Project http://topp.openplans.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
