Thanks Ian! This is great Richard Gould and I championed some of
the ideas going into the Symbology Encoding Implementation Specification
(so I suspect
the both of us are happy). However a review against this document is
*exactly* what is needed
Cheers,
Jody
Ian Turton wrote:
>> 0) a
On 8/23/06, Jody Garnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well Corey is driving for two reason:
> 1) he understands now the maven deploy build lifecycle stuff
> 2) he reviewed GeoAPI 2.0 against the SLD 1.0 specification, and has
> volunteered to updated the interfaces for GeoAPI 2.1.
>
> Justin curren
Well Corey is driving for two reason:
1) he understands now the maven deploy build lifecycle stuff
2) he reviewed GeoAPI 2.0 against the SLD 1.0 specification, and has
volunteered to updated the interfaces for GeoAPI 2.1.
Justin currently GeoTools is method name compatible for the
FeatureTypeSty
Justin Deoliveira wrote:
>I didn't realize it was Cory's call, if so I would have went straight to
>the boss ;). Yes I do need to work against the snapshot. In a couple of
>weeks after filter 1.1 is done I can release another geoapi milestone
>and move trunk to it.
>
>
It's a surprise to me as w
Jody Garnett wrote:
> Can I see a discussion of these issues? Would be surprised what geoapi
> list considers interesting :-) I know I could of been watching the
> commit list but still.
> On a related note I would like to ask Cory if he is going to review
> the GeoAPI style interface as part
Hi all,
Does anyone object to moving trunk to build against the geoapi 2.1
snapshot? The xml filter 1.1 work is being written against the geoapi
filter interfaces and I have run into a few issues. Nothing major, but I
would like to be able to pick them up easily.
-Justin
--
Justin Deoliveira
