On 22/07/2010, at 10:05 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
>>> So, what do you think, good to come back in GeoTools?
>> For sure :-)
> Cool. Any preference for a package?
I think we are starting to have a stable process api; I would not merging that
into gt-api; so we can make use of the annotations throughout the library.
> Also, shall we get rid of DEMTools, since it does nothing?
yeah. I was all ready to have fun there; and then saw some of moovida's work
and he has done it all.
>>> Do you also want the JTS factory along with it (maybe it is of interest for
>>> uDig?)
>> Yep.
>
> Ok. Another thing that I'd like to see is a similar factory that allows the
> processes to be classes instead of static methods. Something like:
>
> @DescribeProcess(...)
> public class MyProcess {
>
> public MyProcess() {};
>
> @DescribeResult(....)
> public <resultType> execute(@DescribeParam(...) String p1,
> @DescribeParam(...) int p2,
> ...) throws Exception {
> ...
> }
> }
That can work; it could even be the same annotations; it is after all just a
subject for reflection right. Only trouble in the above having a progress
listener - any suggestions?
> And then I guess the factory would take a list of classes with the
> above annotations. A possible variant would be something that takes
> parameters as bean properties and has a execute method that takes
> no extra params (besides and eventual progress listener).
No real opinion; let us see what the first implementation looks like.
Jody
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Sprint
What will you do first with EVO, the first 4G phone?
Visit sprint.com/first -- http://p.sf.net/sfu/sprint-com-first
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
