Jody Garnett ha scritto: >>> You are correct; I am pulling the methods down with no net effect in >>> order to refine the documentation if needed. >> Ah ok, this was not clear in the sample, where the methods >> were pulled down without any javadoc at all. >> What about pulling down only the methods that do need extra clarifications? > > Oh I missed something; I generally pull them down anyways in order to > provide type narrowing. Since the geoapi methods are usually accessors > this works. > > Two ways to approach it: > - pull them all down - more work (I find I want to do it anyways in > order to provide type narrowing) this approach may offer a bridge > away from geoapi if needed > - simply depend on geoapi for the definition of methods like > getMethod() in cases where there is no type narrowing
Ah, ok, makes sense. Another question, is there any "builder" considered for this round of changes? Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
