On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Apologies for being behind on this proposal. I don't know if anything went
> forward on this. I don't seen any commits that indicate so. Here is my
> feedback.
> * +1 on the idea as a whole of ditching geoapi
> * +0 on a new opengis module
Good thoughts, I second that.
Cheers,
Gabriel
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 10:31 -0700, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Apologies for being behind on this proposal. I don't know if anything
> went forward on this. I don't seen any commits that indicate so. Here
> is my feedback.
>
>
> * +1 on the idea as a
Not sure if this one moved at all but why not just use the existing api
module? Or are the new geoapi interfaces considered too unstable?
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Jody Garnett
> wrote:
> >> -1 based on the chosen module name.
> >
> >
Apologies for being behind on this proposal. I don't know if anything went
forward on this. I don't seen any commits that indicate so. Here is my
feedback.
* +1 on the idea as a whole of ditching geoapi
* +0 on a new opengis module. I personally would rather see them in the
geotools api module in
Use PixelIsArea rather than PixelIsPoint convention in geotiff writer
-
Key: GEOT-3369
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-3369
Project: GeoTools
Issue Type: Task