I appreciate the responses provided by Jody and Rob to my earlier post about
the relationship between GeoTools and GeoAPI. I want to respond to some of
their comments in another thread.
Before I do that I'd like to put forth a suggested plan for the GeoTools
Feature Model. I have a personal goal of integrating the GeoTools Feature
Model into an experimental branch of OpenJUMP's code base over the course of
the next year or two. I think great benefits would come if UDig would be
able to share a Feature Model with OpenJUMP, a Feature Model drawn from the
GeoTools library. An immediate benefit of this would be UDig's ability to
tap into my FeatureCache, and the FeatureCache classes that will write
features and feature geometries to a binary format. (I know you guys use
indexed ESRI Shapefiles for this purpose currently, but the FeatureCache
would allow us to support things that are not currently included in the
Shapefile spec.)
Before I can make the investment in time we are talking about here I would
like to see if we can get the GeoTools team to come to a consensus on where
the GeoTools Feature Model will be in 6 months, 12 months, even 24 months.
Jody's comments seem to indicate that we'd like to update the GeoTools
FeatureModel to match the interfaces in GeoAPI. I'm willing to work on the
following, under the supervision of a GeoTools developer, if a plan for the
Feature Model can be agreed upon:
[1] Creation of a GeoTools SimpleFeature class (
org.opengis.feature.simple.SimpleFeature) that implements the GeoAPI Feature
interface.
[2] Refactoring and modification of the Shapefile I/O code in GeoTools to
read/write the new SimpleFeature class.
[3] Updated API documentation for the Shapefile I/O code with a basic
tutorial that explains how to use the GeoTools classes to obtain GeoAPI
compatible Feature objects from a Shapefile.
I'd think we really need to see some sort of document or policy that
indicates under what circumstances the GeoTools Feature Model interfaces
would change. (I'm not talking about the implementations, I'm talking about
the interfaces. If we can keep the interfaces stable users of GeoTools can
avoid the direct use of GeoTools implementations whenever possible, and we
won't be breaking third-party applications all the time.) I'd really like to
see a policy under which the Feature Model interfaces don't change unless
necessary for compatiblity with an OGC approved update to the GeoAPI Feature
Model. Remember, you can create all the custom behavior you'd like with
implementations of the Feature Model interfaces, we just need to solidify
the Feature Model interfaces.
I have already started work on my FeatureCache interface. I will continue to
work on it, but I will save the Shapefile I/O code for last. Hopefully we
can get some type of plan and/or policy for the GeoTools Feature Model in
place soon. That will allow me to get to work on the improvements for the
GeoTools Feature Model, and will give me the chance to incorporate it into
the FeatureCahce.
I realize that I approach this from the position of an outsider, so I ask
for your forgiveness if my statements betray a lack of understanding about
the GeoTools code base or process. Perhaps you can find the value in my post
when you consider that I probably share the perspective of other teams that
would be interested in using and contributing to GeoTools if some changes
that encourage stability could be put into place.
The Sunburned Surveyor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
