Aha, we've been ignoring that error for ages!
On 18/11/10 14:27, Michael Bedward wrote:
> Ah... a glint of enlightenment...
>
> I just switched back to maven 2.2.1 and noticed when building the
> javadoc module it issues this warning:
>
>
> [WARNING] **
Ah... a glint of enlightenment...
I just switched back to maven 2.2.1 and noticed when building the
javadoc module it issues this warning:
[WARNING] ***
[WARNING] Deprecation Alert:
[WARNING] No mojo descriptors were found in this project whic
On 18 November 2010 06:14, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Ah ok. Yeah I agree. And yeah moving to maven 3 would be nice as it has some
> nice new features... if only there were more hours in the day :)
I just tried building with maven 3 (OSX, Java 1.6). It fell over when
trying to compile the build/j
App-schema allows clients to use style sheets to deal with responses.
(Because its a known schema, a stylesheet can be published and used to
render it. I have build clients with catalogues of stylesheets for
each feature type - and no way would it be worth bother with ad-hoc
flat schemas). We buil
Wrong type mappings when use SQL2008 for geometry columns
-
Key: GEOT-3320
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-3320
Project: GeoTools
Issue Type: Bug
Components: data sq
On 18/11/10 04:12, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Going out with GML3 might please
> the few that root for complex features but will break all
> other clients. At the very least the choice should be per
> layer, not per server, so that the setup that try to compromise
> between complex features and common ne
The underlying problem is that for complex features, the target GML
version is determined by the target schema, which is chosen by the data
provider and not the client. For example, a GeoSciML 2.0 feature type
*must* be delivered in GML 3.1.1, while a GeoSciML 3.0 feature type
*must* be deliver
+1 for updating the dev guide. Although it is a bit naughty forcing tool
upgrades on stable, we have to be pragmatic.
On 17/11/10 22:38, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> So what do people prefer? Shall I just updated the developer guide? Or roll
> back the change?
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies
Software Eng
Actually you won't, i left the hardcoded version number as a fallback in
there in the patch i actually committed.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Secondary patch looks good :-) Will need to udpate the rename.xml ant
> script to avoid messing wtih GeoTools class now?
> Jody
Secondary patch looks good :-) Will need to udpate the rename.xml ant script to
avoid messing wtih GeoTools class now?
Jody
On 17/11/2010, at 10:59 AM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> OK, I added a secondary patch that adds this info to the GeoTools class:
>
> http://jira.codehaus.org/secure/attachm
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Yeah, the mime type for gml output for GetFeatureInfo was not really though
> out with regard to gml versions. "application/vnd.ogc.gml" is ambiguous.
> Ideally choosing the output format would follow the way other output formats
> do it
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
> >> Update the developer guide? Atm it would be better to try out Maven 3
> >> rather than trying to support an old maven version imho
> >
> > Not too sure what you mean here. The a
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
>> Update the developer guide? Atm it would be better to try out Maven 3
>> rather than trying to support an old maven version imho
>
> Not too sure what you mean here. The alternatives are either (a) update the
> developer guide stating t
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
> > Doh, I knew it was going to be too easy. I also made the changes on 2.6.x
> as
> > well for which it says 2.0.10 is supported.
> > So what do people prefer? Shall I just updated t
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Doh, I knew it was going to be too easy. I also made the changes on 2.6.x as
> well for which it says 2.0.10 is supported.
> So what do people prefer? Shall I just updated the developer guide? Or roll
> back the change?
Update the develo
+1 for updating the developer guide. Only professionals are concerned,
should not be a problem :-)
Quoting Justin Deoliveira :
> Doh, I knew it was going to be too easy. I also made the changes on 2.6.x as
> well for which it says 2.0.10 is supported.
>
> So what do people prefer? Shall I just
Yeah, the mime type for gml output for GetFeatureInfo was not really though
out with regard to gml versions. "application/vnd.ogc.gml" is ambiguous.
Ideally choosing the output format would follow the way other output formats
do it and just use a different mime type. "text/xml; subtype=gml/2.1.2"
Doh, I knew it was going to be too easy. I also made the changes on 2.6.x as
well for which it says 2.0.10 is supported.
So what do people prefer? Shall I just updated the developer guide? Or roll
back the change?
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
wrote:
> After Justin's chan
Hi,
I am currently working on making WMS compatible with app-schema (complex
features).
I noticed that GetFeatureInfo can only output GML 2 (when choosing gml
as output format). However complex features can't be encoded in GML2,
only GML3.
Somehow GML3 will have to be supported in GetFeature
19 matches
Mail list logo
