Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

Am 04.07.2011 16:29, schrieb Andrea Aime: > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Matthias Lendholt > > wrote: > > Interesting. Did you try dropping those processes in a GeoServer? > They might work out of the box in WPS if they are registered in

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Matthias Lendholt < matthias.lendh...@gfz-potsdam.de> wrote: > Interesting. Did you try dropping those processes in a GeoServer? >> They might work out of the box in WPS if they are registered in SPI and >> use simple enough arguments and return values (privitives,

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

Am 04.07.2011 14:00, schrieb Andrea Aime: > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Matthias Lendholt > > wrote: > > Am 03.07.2011 09:57, schrieb Jody Garnett: > > Well with the map layer work sorted out (thanks mbedward and aaime) I > > can return to

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Matthias Lendholt < matthias.lendh...@gfz-potsdam.de> wrote: > Am 03.07.2011 09:57, schrieb Jody Garnett: > > Well with the map layer work sorted out (thanks mbedward and aaime) I > > can return to what I wanted to work on after docs ... > > > > With that in mind I

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

Am 03.07.2011 09:57, schrieb Jody Garnett: > Well with the map layer work sorted out (thanks mbedward and aaime) I > can return to what I wanted to work on after docs ... > > With that in mind I am going to break out gt-process with an eye towards > moving it to supported status. From my perspect

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

On 4 July 2011 17:28, Andrea Aime wrote: >> The GeoTools raster-to-vector code should be dropped and the >> equivalent JAITools operator wrapped instead. The latter was based on >> the former but has had far more testing thanks to Andrea. There is an >> issue for this: http://jira.codehaus.org/bro

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Michael Bedward wrote: > On 4 July 2011 10:38, Jody Garnett wrote: > > 3) gt-process-raster > > - migrate raster to vector for gt-process > > - not sure what else goes here; jgrasstools stole most of the reason for > > this one to live > > > > The GeoServer ones ar

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:38 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > Or drop them altogheter. The current ones are not efficient, most of them > have a better implementation > on the GeoServer side. All the FeatureToFeatureProcess classes are memory > bound for example. > There are some good ideas on both sides

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

On 4 July 2011 10:38, Jody Garnett wrote: > 3) gt-process-raster > - migrate raster to vector for gt-process > - not sure what else goes here; jgrasstools stole most of the reason for > this one to live > > The GeoServer ones are GPL too of course but we have a  tradition of > backporting the reus

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

Hi Andrea; going to take your email as a general +1 for the requested unsupported modules... > > - Review and Document the base classes / annotations > > - Write a small advanced tutorial showing how to make one process > > - Migrate the processes implementations that were included as examples in

Re: [Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Jody Garnett wrote: > 1) gt-process > - Rescuing from aaime's experiment in geoserver (mostly annotations and a > few nice classes) > Yep. Those are not exactly finished, there would be more work to do to handle, for example, processes returning multiple outputs b

[Geotools-devel] gt-process planning

Well with the map layer work sorted out (thanks mbedward and aaime) I can return to what I wanted to work on after docs ... With that in mind I am going to break out gt-process with an eye towards moving it to supported status. I assume at this stage with geoserver wps being released to the wil