[Geotools-devel] Geotools 8.0 stable release

Geotools 8.0 Released The Geotools community is pleased to announce the availability of Geotools 8.0 for download on sourceforge. * geotools-8.0-bin.zip

Re: [Geotools-devel] Meeting 2012-08-06

On 07/08/12 00:57, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Sorry I couldn't make it today, it is a holiday in Canada and i am not > working a regular working day. And it is the two weeks in which Canada isn't frozen solid. ;-) > Regarding the security stuff for 2.2.x being a blocker is that referring > to wh

Re: [Geotools-devel] Time boxed releases proposal turned into a first doc page

Thanks for putting that together Andrea. Looked it over and made some edits. Mostly just some minor rewording, spelling, etc... You can find the result here. https://github.com/jdeolive/geoserver/blob/release_schedule_doc/doc/en/developer/source/release-schedule/index.rst If you have no concerns

Re: [Geotools-devel] Meeting 2012-08-06

Hey guys, Sorry I couldn't make it today, it is a holiday in Canada and i am not working a regular working day. Regarding the security stuff for 2.2.x being a blocker is that referring to what Christian recently posted? Looks like it, will respond to that thread. -Justin On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at

[Geotools-devel] Meeting 2012-08-06

Participants --- Attending: - Andrea Aime (part) - Ben Caradoc-Davies - Jody Garnett Agenda == - Dual-License Request - Upcoming Board Meeting - GeoServer PSC refresh - Security in GeoServer 2.2.x - Reshape/Transform module in GeoTools - GeoTools 8 Release Dual-License Request =

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

Update > > Patch: > + Implement > ReferencedEnvelope3D.reference(org.opengis.geometry.Envelope) method > + Implement better Transform method > + Use CRS.toSRS( bounds.getCoordinateReferenceSystem() ) to return > SRS string in filter class > + Remove filtervisitor hack and update D

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

On 08/06/2012 01:56 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: >> * for the trasform method imho a better, but simple implementation >> would be to reproject the x,y and leave the Z >> unaltered (but preserve it). This is what JTS.tarnsform(Geometry, >> MathTransform) does today, so it would also preserve >>

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

> > * for the trasform method imho a better, but simple implementation > would be to reproject the x,y and leave the Z >unaltered (but preserve it). This is what JTS.tarnsform(Geometry, > MathTransform) does today, so it would also preserve >consistency within the library Actually, the c

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

On 08/06/2012 12:23 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: >> Afaik this works the way I explained before, that is, the Z dimension is left >> unaltered during the reprojection. >> Which is not true reprojection, but what we can afford given that the >> vertical >> transformation module is not working >> > I r

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

> Afaik this works the way I explained before, that is, the Z dimension is left > unaltered during the reprojection. > Which is not true reprojection, but what we can afford given that the vertical > transformation module is not working > I reprojected from WGS84 to WGS66 which only differ in thei

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Niels Charlier wrote: > The current patch and proposal does not include these features. However, I'd > understand that WFS post requests need to at least support the same features > as wfs get requests. Please let me know the minimum requirements with > regards to

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

Andrea, I am trying to make an overview of all the changes that require me to do to the patch and proposal to get them passed. This is what I have so far: Patch: Implement ReferencedEnvelope3D.reference(org.opengis.geometry.Envelope) method Implement better Transform method Use C

Re: [Geotools-devel] *proposal* (new version): Support for three-dimensional envelopes and bounding box filters

Hi, > I'm not saying that you have to do everything at once, can you answer > the simple question above though? > Restating it: "How sure you are that you're going to implement proper > encoding of 3D bboxes at the very least for JDBC stores (and possibly > for shapefiles as well?)" I am sorry

Re: [Geotools-devel] New community module: reshape feature source/store

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM, wrote: > Looks good, +1 for the module. > > I see another possible future use case, access control for individual > attributes. It should be possible to define such a feature hiding some > attributes and use this feature for access control. > > Another possibility

Re: [Geotools-devel] New community module: reshape feature source/store

Looks good, +1 for the module. I see another possible future use case, access control for individual attributes. It should be possible to define such a feature hiding some attributes and use this feature for access control. Another possibility could be adding converters returning null if a

Re: [Geotools-devel] New community module: reshape feature source/store

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Gabriel Roldan wrote: > Hi Andrea, > > I think this makes for a very welcomed contribution. > > Of particular interest to me is the ability to "reshape" shapefiles. > It's actually something that's been rounding my mind for the last week > anticipating its need for

[Geotools-devel] [jira] (GEOT-4221) Add quotes to Djava.library.path in root-level pom.

Adam Brow

Re: [Geotools-devel] New community module: reshape feature source/store

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > If I can recommend calling it "transform" as the name "reshape" has caused > no end of confusion. Indeed you will find the current process called > "transform". Cool, will do that > +1 on the new module however! > > I am very impressed with t