On 27/04/10 01:05, Andrea Aime wrote: > Jody Garnett ha scritto: >>> As stated before I like the direction this is going, just worried a >>> bit about the timing and the fact this would make porting patches >>> over from 2.6.x to trunk (or vice versa) harder for a few months >>> (until we release 2.7.0) >> >> So is that worry enough for a +0? Or could you make a good suggestion >> with respect to timing? > > I leaning towards +0 because of this but I would like to hear what > others have to say about the proposal as well.
I'll give this a +1. For anyone who as experienced the pain of generics in the DataStore/FeatureSource family, this has to be a big usability win for simple feature use cases of GeoTools. It will also make it slightly easier to spot code that is not complex-feature-ready. I agree with Andrea that it will make porting patches a bit harder, but we have been a bit spoiled by the closeness of 2.6.x/trunk, and we should not let developer comfort get in the way of fixing the serious user suffering that Jody recently observed in person. Nice work, Jody. -- Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au> Software Engineering Team Leader CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering Australian Resources Research Centre ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
