What about maintaining two separate envelope classes? I didn't look at the
patch but if there is any real hard work that goes on inside perhaps it
could be deleted out to a utility class.
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
Okay, but this is impossible
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Justin Deoliveira jdeol...@opengeo.orgwrote:
What about maintaining two separate envelope classes? I didn't look at the
patch but if there is any real hard work that goes on inside perhaps it
could be deleted out to a utility class.
The probem with two
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Andrea Aime
andrea.a...@geo-solutions.itwrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Justin Deoliveira
jdeol...@opengeo.orgwrote:
What about maintaining two separate envelope classes? I didn't look at
the patch but if there is any real hard work that goes on
That means that referencedenvelope3d is not derived from en evelope3d any
longer, which is impossible unless I drop envelope3d all together and merge
them. Is that what you are suggesting? I will look in to this possibility.
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Justin Deoliveira jdeol...@opengeo.org
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Niels ni...@scitus.be wrote:
That means that referencedenvelope3d is not derived from en evelope3d any
longer, which is impossible unless I drop envelope3d all together and merge
them. Is that what you are suggesting? I will look in to this possibility.
Yep,
Okay, but this is impossible because ReferencedEvelope3D cannot be
derived from both Envelope3D and ReferencedEnvelope at the same time.
Unless what you mean is that I drop Envelope3D all together and merge
the two classes? I can look in to that option.
Kind Regards
Niels Charlier
On
:* [Geotools-devel] *proposal*: Support for three-dimensional
envelopes and bounding box filters
Hi Everyone,
Please have a look at my proposal:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Support+for+three-dimensional+envelopes+and+bounding+box+filters
Please review.
Kind Regards
Niels Charlier
The interface was just an idea I threw in there, because there were concerns
about ReferencedEnvelope3D not being a ReferencedEnvelope.
But the idea of not making separate classes and make the current ones support
3D, I think is quite tricky too.
The algorithms aren't necessarily the same
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote:
The interface was just an idea I threw in there, because there were
concerns about ReferencedEnvelope3D not being a ReferencedEnvelope.
But the idea of not making separate classes and make the current ones
support
That would work for me.
--
Jody Garnett
On 17/07/2012, at 7:38 PM, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote:
The interface was just an idea I threw in there, because there were
concerns about
When I first read over the proposal this was my thought as well.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote:
That would work for me.
--
Jody Garnett
On 17/07/2012, at 7:38 PM, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:15
Hi Everyone,
Please have a look at my proposal:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Support+for+three-dimensional+envelopes+and+bounding+box+filters
Please review.
Kind Regards
Niels Charlier
--
Live Security
message:
From: Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be
To: geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Tuesday, 17 July 2012 6:09:35 AM
Subject: [Geotools-devel] *proposal*: Support for three-dimensional envelopes
and bounding box filters
Hi Everyone,
Please have a look at my proposal:
http
)
To: geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
(mailto:geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net)
Date: Tuesday, 17 July 2012 6:09:35 AM
Subject: [Geotools-devel] *proposal*: Support for three-dimensional
envelopes and bounding box filters
Hi Everyone,
Please have a look at my proposal
I'm not even going to vote as Jody is our API supremo and you will need
to address his concerns. Thanks, Jody, for providing suggestions to Niels.
My only comment is unrelated: I suggest a slight clarification to the
language describing BBOX, as discussed in GEOS-5148:
Original text: we receive
15 matches
Mail list logo
