Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

+1 Cheers Andrea On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > I propose that we ask OSGeo to: "Obtain legal advice on the need for and > form of source code copyright headers." > > So far we have three +1 votes but we need more. PMC? > > Kind regards, > > --

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

+1 Cheers On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > +1 > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini >

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

+1 Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal:

+1 Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via di Montramito 3/A 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal:

+1. On 01/06/16 09:56, Jody Garnett wrote: > We have the following motion: > > "Apply OSGeo copyright on creation/contribution" > > And response via email: > >- Andrea Aime +1 (second) >- Ben Caradoc-Davies +0 (agreement but no clear vote) >- Christian Mueller >- Ian Turton >

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

+1. On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 3:50 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > So far we have: > >- Andrea Aime >- Ben Caradoc-Davies +1 >- Christian Mueller >- Ian Turton >- Jody Garnett +1 >- Justin Deoliveira >- Simone Giannecchini > > > > -- > Jody Garnett > >

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

So far we have: - Andrea Aime - Ben Caradoc-Davies +1 - Christian Mueller - Ian Turton - Jody Garnett +1 - Justin Deoliveira - Simone Giannecchini -- Jody Garnett On 31 May 2016 at 12:56, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > I propose that we ask OSGeo to:

[Geotools-devel] proposal:

We have the following motion: "Apply OSGeo copyright on creation/contribution" And response via email: - Andrea Aime +1 (second) - Ben Caradoc-Davies +0 (agreement but no clear vote) - Christian Mueller - Ian Turton - Jody Garnett +1 (motion) - Justin Deoliveira +0

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

I propose that we ask OSGeo to: "Obtain legal advice on the need for and form of source code copyright headers." So far we have three +1 votes but we need more. PMC? Kind regards, -- Ben Caradoc-Davies Director Transient Software Limited New Zealand

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

+1 -- Jody Garnett On 25 May 2016 at 13:27, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > How about: "Obtain legal advice on the need for and form of source code > copyright headers."? > > I do not think that it is necessary to mention Berne because a lawyer will > refer to the applicable

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

How about: "Obtain legal advice on the need for and form of source code copyright headers."? I do not think that it is necessary to mention Berne because a lawyer will refer to the applicable law, treaties, and precedent. I think it is necessary to ask about both the need and form. Kind

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

Ben we will need to tighten this up into a question before seeking legal advice, since it is expensive. Can we make a simpler motion - something like: *Obtain legal advice on source code header requirements "post-Berne"* I also note from your earlier research (

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: ask OSGeo for legal advice on copyright headers

I propose that the GeoTools PMC ask OSGeo to obtain legal advice on copyright headers. (1) Is it necessary for GeoTools to include a copyright header in each source code file to defend these from copyright infringement? (2) If a copyright header is included in each source code file, should it

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

+1. Looks like a well-considered and beneficial change. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > -- Ben Caradoc-Davies Director Transient

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Think we are good to go - thanks for the effort Daniele. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 11:48 AM Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Looks good, added my +1 > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Added my +1 - we are standing at: >> >>-

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Looks good, added my +1 On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:01 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > Added my +1 - we are standing at: > >- Andrea Aime: +1 >- Ben Caradoc-Davies >- Christian Mueller >- Ian Turton: +1 >- Justin Deoliveira >- Jody Garnett +1 >-

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Added my +1 - we are standing at: - Andrea Aime: +1 - Ben Caradoc-Davies - Christian Mueller - Ian Turton: +1 - Justin Deoliveira - Jody Garnett +1 - Simone Giannecchini: +1 Ben, Justin, Christian are you in position to respond (the proposal is here

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Hi, We have 3 positive and NO negative. Could I consider the proposal accepted and proceed with the merge? Please, let me know. Cheers, Daniele On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Ian Turton wrote: > Sorry I've been busy but it looks good to me +1 > > Ian > > On 7 April 2016

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Sorry I've been busy but it looks good to me +1 Ian On 7 April 2016 at 17:04, Daniele Romagnoli < daniele.romagn...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > Hi List, > any other vote on the proposal? > Please, let me know if you need any clarification. > > Cheers, > Daniele > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:09

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

+1 Cheers Andrea On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Daniele Romagnoli < daniele.romagn...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > Hi List, > any other vote on the proposal? > Please, let me know if you need any clarification. > > Cheers, > Daniele > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Simone Giannecchini < >

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Hi List, any other vote on the proposal? Please, let me know if you need any clarification. Cheers, Daniele On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > Dear All, > I have been involved in the preparation for this work as I asked to >

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Dear All, I have been involved in the preparation for this work as I asked to generalize this code so that it can be used in other plugin (e.g. GDAL). Hence I am +1. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.

[Geotools-devel] proposal: refactor vector mask external footprint generation

Here is the proposal from Daniele Romagnoli: - https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Refactor-vector-mask-external-footprint-generation Thanks for pulling this together Daniele (the proposal is quite detailed and has code examples making it easy to review). PMC members please respond as

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: Add capability to report files composing a store/reader

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Daniele Romagnoli < daniele.romagn...@geo-solutions.it> wrote: > Hi list, > I have setup a proposal for the topic we have discussed in the past > months/weeks in relation to adding a way to determine which files compose a > store/reader. > > The related page is

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: Add capability to report files composing a store/reader

Hi list, I have setup a proposal for the topic we have discussed in the past months/weeks in relation to adding a way to determine which files compose a store/reader. The related page is here: https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Add-capability-to-report-files-composing-a-store-reader The

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: stroke dash array as expression

Hi Jody, Thanks for your feedback and for updating the proposal. I'm good it all the changes proposed :) I have been off the last weeks (vacation time, pushed to other projects) ... but I have the next week allocated to this work. I have some doubts about the current pull request (I may have

[Geotools-devel] proposal: stroke dash array as expression

This was not linked from the proposal page so I missed it when rounding up reviewing proposals earlier in the week: https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/stroke%20dasharray%20as%20an%20expression If I can ask PMC members to review/vote. It looks like the pull request is ready here: -

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: stroke dash array as expression

Nuno Oliveira: I went of the proposal and had two bits of feedback. - The public org.opengis.style.Stroke interface would not change (since it is nailed down the the SLD standard). To access the dash array expressions we would use the org.geotools.styling.Stroke interface. - The

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: single and cross layer z-ordering

Hi all the proposal is 5 days old, besides me and Simone I don't see any votes. Care to share an opinion/vote? :-) Cheers Andrea On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it wrote: Hi, as already anticipated during the bi-weekly meetings, here is the proposal for

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: single and cross layer z-ordering

You got me feedback, I understand about FeatureTypeStyle.getSortBy() it just seems awkward. +1 -- Jody Garnett On 8 August 2015 at 05:40, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it wrote: Hi all the proposal is 5 days old, besides me and Simone I don't see any votes. Care to share an

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: single and cross layer z-ordering

+0. I have no objection. Once you have a clear use case and a satisfactory API tested in production (for the cross-layer z-ordering in particular), it may be worthwhile reporting these to the WMS technical committee of the OGC as a change request. At the least, this will warn them that some

[Geotools-devel] proposal: TextSymbolizer.fonts() method

Proposal is here: https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Text%20Symbolizer%20Multi-font%20support Fairly straight forward, method was over looked when we moved to direct use of Lists/Maps as SLD 1.1 only used one Font. -- Jody Garnett

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

A couple bits of feedback... To confirm, ClipToMinimumMaximum is a normalization algorithm, and not an alternative ContrastEnhancement.getType() ? Like I would only expect it to work if ContrastEnhancement.getType() is NORMALIZE ... For CSS all vendor options follow the same approach with -gt-

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

On Wed, 5 Aug, 2015 at 5:50 PM, ian ijtur...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 5 Aug, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: There is a really different track here on how to modify the style interfaces in a safe manner (between this proposals and anime's. I made the suggestion

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

It's doable that way but I'm not really happy about storing a bunch of algorithm specific information at the ContrastEnhancer level. Or it leads to a nasty mix of org.opengis.style.ContrastMethod and org.geotools.styling.ContrastMethod and a whole bunch of messing about to try to make sure

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

Hi Jody, I see your point about StyleVisitor implementations not covered by Abstract StyleVisitors which may break. However, as far as I can see from Ian changes on his branch, he has already made several visitors extending the AbstractStyleVisitor which implements the new method so that change

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

There is a really different track here on how to modify the style interfaces in a safe manner (between this proposals and anime's. I made the suggestion for FeatureTypeStyle.getSortBy() ... and the answer was to consistently use the vendor options parameter map. Down a few levels here to

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

On Wed, 5 Aug, 2015 at 5:27 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: There is a really different track here on how to modify the style interfaces in a safe manner (between this proposals and anime's. I made the suggestion for FeatureTypeStyle.getSortBy() ... and the answer was to

[Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

In conjunction with GeoSolutions I've written a proposal for the implementation of the changes needed to make Contrast Enhancement work with specified algorithms and parameters rather than just doing it as a black box as currently. The proposal is at

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

+0 Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://goo.gl/it488V for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax:

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

Sorry Ian, getting muddle between your proposal text and the subsequent API change section. Reviewing both together, you are not just talking about changing from CodeList values to Strings, you are talking about changing ContrastMethod to a class ... with a type and some of those types need

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

ContrastMethod is already a code list so you should be able to add the options you need no problem. The interface ContrastEnhancement is here: public interface ContrastEnhancement { public ContrastMethod getMethod(); Expression getGammaValue(); } Where ContrastMethod is an enum: public

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

Hi Ian, works for me, +1 Cheers Andrea On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Ian Turton ijtur...@gmail.com wrote: In conjunction with GeoSolutions I've written a proposal for the implementation of the changes needed to make Contrast Enhancement work with specified algorithms and parameters rather

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

Added my +1, got a couple questions/clarifications. *ContrastMethod* The proposal has been implemented in such a way that existing code will compile without change. One item to note is that `ContrastMethod.NORMALIZE` and `ContrastMethod.HISTOGRAM` are no longer enums but are now Strings.

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

On 4 August 2015 at 19:26, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Added my +1, got a couple questions/clarifications. *ContrastMethod* The proposal has been implemented in such a way that existing code will compile without change. One item to note is that `ContrastMethod.NORMALIZE` and

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: single and cross layer z-ordering

Thanks Andrea, It is a mad concept to try and implement - but I expect users will love it as it is more inuitive than the use of feature type style to control z-order. Feedback (i.e. suggestions feel free to say no)... *Single layer z-ordering* For the sorting within a feature type style change

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: single and cross layer z-ordering

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Andrea, It is a mad concept to try and implement - but I expect users will love it as it is more inuitive than the use of feature type style to control z-order. Feedback (i.e. suggestions feel free to say

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal to implement specific methods for Contrast Enhancement

+0. (I updated the wiki page.) On 05/08/15 01:45, Ian Turton wrote: In conjunction with GeoSolutions I've written a proposal for the implementation of the changes needed to make Contrast Enhancement work with specified algorithms and parameters rather than just doing it as a black box as

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: single and cross layer z-ordering

Hi, as already anticipated during the bi-weekly meetings, here is the proposal for single and cross layer z-ordering in map rendering: https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/Z-order-control-during-map-production The proposal might not have been needed, there are no API changes, but the change

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: Addressing geoapi 3.0.0 incompatibilities

Several months ago we had some heated complaints about the use of GeoAPI interfaces in the gt-opengis jar. While we follow the maven publication guidelines (the code point for gt-opengis jar is distinct from the formal geoapi 3.0.0 release) a few method level differences require the use of class

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal for a Coverage Mosaic operation

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Not quite sure what to make of your email. Is this a proposal for an API change? Or just a notification that you have some work to do on image mosaic? Nah, just a notification, it's not going to change any API,

[Geotools-devel] Proposal for a Coverage Mosaic operation

Hi all, I would propose to implement a new operation for mosaicking various coverages into a single one. At the moment, the only way to mosaic multiple coverages is to mosaic the associated RenderedImages, but this operation does not take into account the GridCoverage position in the model space.

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal for a Coverage Mosaic operation

Not quite sure what to make of your email. Is this a proposal for an API change? Or just a notification that you have some work to do on image mosaic? If you need to make a geotools proposals you can add a page here: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Proposals And of course you can

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: Upgrade to Java 7

Thanks Justin - I think that is enough votes to carry the proposal: * http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Upgrade+master+to+Java+7 You reported an OpenJDK Rendering failure on geoserver-devel - do you have a JIRA for that? Jody Garnett On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Justin Deoliveira

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: Upgrade to Java 7

Proposal is here: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Upgrade+to+Java+7 -- Jody Garnett -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: Upgrade to Java 7

+1. On 09/04/14 14:07, Jody Garnett wrote: Proposal is here: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Upgrade+to+Java+7 -- Jody Garnett -- Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: Upgrade to Java 7

+1 under a few conditions: * we only upgrade master (the proposal does not say) * the build gets fixed * we have people upgrading the build servers I offer to upgrade the Windows build server Cheers Andrea On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: Upgrade to Java 7

Thanks Andrea, I have updated the proposal to reflect your comments. Jody Garnett On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.itwrote: +1 under a few conditions: * we only upgrade master (the proposal does not say) * the build gets fixed * we have people upgrading

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: Upgrade to Java 7

+1. I'll try to look at the build failure in sqlite today and start the process of upgrading ares. On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:55 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks Andrea, I have updated the proposal to reflect your comments. Jody Garnett On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:32 PM,

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote: Looks like we have enough votes to proceed. Linked to the google doc. Filled in the release schedule: http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GeoTools+and+GeoServer+release+schedule Currently I have both individual branch

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

I tried both sort orders, I liked seeing what was coming up. But yeah don't mind either way. I would like to keep only one copy of the schedule, so if the combined one works for you we can remove the per branch schedule. Ian only volunteered for the final release, so we still need a volunteer.

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

I had only picked up the release but I can do the RC2 as well. Ian On 10 February 2014 08:17, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it wrote: On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote: Looks like we have enough votes to proceed. Linked to the google doc.

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Ian Turton ijtur...@gmail.com wrote: I had only picked up the release but I can do the RC2 as well. Now, that's quite generous of you, thanks! :-) Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information ==

[Geotools-devel] Proposal to backport code from GeoServer

Hi all, I would change the GeoWebCache WMSTileFuser class for making it more performant, but this operation requires to move some code to avoid cyclic dependencies. For this reason I would submit to the PSC a proposal of moving 2 packages of the GeoServer WMS module developed by Andrea Aime.

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

+1. Thanks Jody. And thanks to Andrea and Alessio, who IIRC originated the idea. Perhaps add a link to Andrea's Google Doc? Kind regards, Ben. On 06/02/14 11:13, Jody Garnett wrote: Proposal is up: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Extended+Release+Schedule In writing it up I

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

Looks like we have enough votes to proceed. Linked to the google doc. Filled in the release schedule: http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GeoTools+and+GeoServer+release+schedule Currently I have both individual branch schedule, and a combined schedule (thanks to text editor sort). I think I like

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal is up: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Extended+Release+Schedule In writing it up I ended up with a gap before the maintenance phase, in order to transition from RC to Release on time. The result

Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

+1 == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Alessio Fabiani @alfa7691 Founder/Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 331

[Geotools-devel] proposal extended release schedule

Proposal is up: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Extended+Release+Schedule In writing it up I ended up with a gap before the maintenance phase, in order to transition from RC to Release on time. The result still alternates between stable and maintenance, but the change to a new branch

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: structured coverage grid readers, aka generic means of finding what's inside a mosaic

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au wrote: +0. (Same reason as before.) I do have a couple of questions: My recollection is that the NetCDF CF (previously COARDS) Conventions were limited to one-grid-per file. Are your multiple coverages all on the

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 5:16 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.comwrote: So my feedback (from the meeting) was that I tend to focus not he Tasks section (in order to determine what work is needed from the community to make the proposal happen, and what time frame the work is happening in).

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

+0. Andrea, this is a thoroughly documented proposal. The level of detail inspires confidence; only my lack of knowledge of coverages in GeoServer limits my vote to +0. On 08/05/13 23:34, Andrea Aime wrote: Hi all, here is our overhauled proposal for multicoverage grid readers:

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: structured coverage grid readers, aka generic means of finding what's inside a mosaic

+0. (Same reason as before.) I do have a couple of questions: My recollection is that the NetCDF CF (previously COARDS) Conventions were limited to one-grid-per file. Are your multiple coverages all on the same grid? Do you support CF Conventions? Kind regards, Ben. On 09/05/13 00:00, Andrea

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

So my feedback (from the meeting) was that I tend to focus not he Tasks section (in order to determine what work is needed from the community to make the proposal happen, and what time frame the work is happening in). In that respect I have volunteered to write up a code example for the docs

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: structured coverage grid readers, aka generic means of finding what's inside a mosaic

Same deal for this proposal, please write my name down for a couple of documentation tasks. 1. reading a netcdf file (assume there will be a test case for me to use as an example?) 2. file harvest for image mosaic -- Jody Garnett On Wednesday, 8 May 2013 at 10:00 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: structured coverage grid readers, aka generic means of finding what's inside a mosaic

Fair enough. Thanks. On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.itwrote: On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Justin Deoliveira jdeol...@opengeo.orgwrote: Read over the proposal. Looks nice, this will be great to have. One question that came up while reading through

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: structured coverage grid readers, aka generic means of finding what's inside a mosaic

Read over the proposal. Looks nice, this will be great to have. One question that came up while reading through the proposal was GranuleSource/Store looks a whole lot like FeatureSource/FeatureStore. Was it considered to simply model granules as Feature objects, and use the existing interfaces.

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: structured coverage grid readers, aka generic means of finding what's inside a mosaic

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:28 PM, Justin Deoliveira jdeol...@opengeo.orgwrote: Read over the proposal. Looks nice, this will be great to have. One question that came up while reading through the proposal was GranuleSource/Store looks a whole lot like FeatureSource/FeatureStore. Was it

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

Ciao Frank, please, find my comments inline below... Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer training in Milan, 6th 7th June 2013! Visit http://geoserver.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

Hi all, here is our overhauled proposal for multicoverage grid readers: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Efficient+support+for+multiple+coverages+in+GridCoverageReader This proposal allows to break the 1-1 relationship between reader and coverage, and allows proper support for

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: structured coverage grid readers, aka generic means of finding what's inside a mosaic

Hi, a second proposal we'd like to push forward is the ability to look under the hood of a grid reader that does mosaicking of information (either spatial, temporal or along other dimensions) and get to know the pieces making it up:

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

I think you mean feedback, questions, votes and volunteers! I am very much in support of this idea, and checked over the draft earlier. I will go over the final result before voting. Thanks very much for pushing this forward. -- Jody Garnett On 08/05/2013, at 8:34 AM, Andrea Aime

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

Andrea, I'm not currently a user of the grid coverage reader, but I might at some point. Skimming the proposal I was wondering: 1) Why you offer the getMetadataNames(coverage,...) and getMetadataValues(coverage,...) on GridCoverageReader instead of handling them on GridCoverage. 2) Similarly,

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: efficient support for multicoverage grid readers

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Frank Warmerdam warmer...@pobox.com wrote: Andrea, I'm not currently a user of the grid coverage reader, but I might at some point. Skimming the proposal I was wondering: 1) Why you offer the getMetadataNames(coverage,...) and

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

Sorry for the late vote, +1. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Simone Giannecchini simone.giannecch...@geo-solutions.it wrote: Ciao Andrea, I tried to put my +1 on the page but it looks like I can't log in. I'll try to reset the pwd, but, yeah, this is a +1. Regards, Simone Giannecchini ==

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

+1 here, sounds awesome. On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Justin Deoliveira jdeol...@opengeo.orgwrote: Sorry for the late vote, +1. On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Simone Giannecchini simone.giannecch...@geo-solutions.it wrote: Ciao Andrea, I tried to put my +1 on the page but it

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

+1. Looks good to me. This change should be fine on master. Kind regards, Ben. On 07/04/13 22:22, Andrea Aime wrote: Hi all, here is a proposal to upgrade the shapefile-ng module to supported status, and make shapefile become (temporarily) an unsupported module named shapefile-old:

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.itwrote: Hi all, here is a proposal to upgrade the shapefile-ng module to supported status, and make shapefile become (temporarily) an unsupported module named shapefile-old:

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

Ciao Andrea, I tried to put my +1 on the page but it looks like I can't log in. I'll try to reset the pwd, but, yeah, this is a +1. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer training in Milan, 6th 7th June 2013! Visit http://geoserver.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Simone

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 1:34 AM, Jody Garnett jody.garn...@gmail.com wrote: I tried to provide word from uDig - we already use shapefile-ng in order to take advantage of sorting. I have filled in a few tasks on your proposal (to specific code examples needing updating). Ah, sorry, I

[Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

Hi all, here is a proposal to upgrade the shapefile-ng module to supported status, and make shapefile become (temporarily) an unsupported module named shapefile-old: http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Migrate+shapefile+to+shapefile-ng and here is the pull request:

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: upgrading the shapefile module to shapefile NG

I tried to provide word from uDig - we already use shapefile-ng in order to take advantage of sorting. I have filled in a few tasks on your proposal (to specific code examples needing updating). Thoughts: - tempted to introduce matching constructors, and marking them deprecated to give

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

I would prefer not to mess with it if we don't have to (part of our motivation in looking at this is to provide something that is clear cut so legal departments do not need to think). If I word that more strongly we would need to talk to a legal rep at free software foundation to find you a

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

On Feb 4, 2013 6:53 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au wrote: I was going to ask Frank for more detail, but reading his original email, it is all there: http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/Contribution-Agreement-Clarity-td5022284.html My understanding of this is that Google

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

What is the impact on existing contributors? Will we need to submit new agreements? This new agreement also appears to introduce a maintenance overhead in that corporate entities seem to have to designate authorised employees who are able to contribute. In my organisation, the exercise of this

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 9:16 PM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: What is the impact on existing contributors? Will we need to submit new agreements? I made some notes / assumptions in the proposal (check the tasks section). This new agreement also appears to introduce a maintenance

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

I am sure this has been covered but the proposal states that the current agreement is unsuitable for use but doesn't state why. For ignorant folks like me who haven't been following the developments on this one it would be nice to have a few bullet points as to what the issues are. On Mon, Feb

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

That is just it Justin, we do not know (and are not going to get any further detail). My assumption is that our agreement would require thought/review as it is not on a whitelist of approved documents. -- Jody Garnett On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 3:01 AM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: For

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

I added these in a new discussion section. On 04/02/13 19:03, Jody Garnett wrote: Can you make a note of these two questions on the proposal page. -- Ben Caradoc-Davies ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au Software Engineer CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering Australian Resources Research

Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal Replace Contribution Agreement

Thanks Ben, for reference I have been going through the eclipse stuff and … a) It also demands employers sign for each representative they have in the mix b) It is very clear (when you sign up) that you can reference an employer, or the organisations you are doing the work for as a contractor

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >