On 07/01/13 22:31, Niels Charlier wrote:
I think the reason might be that because of the existence of the
app-schema-test package in geoserver there has been traditionally less
test coverage in the gt-app-schema package itself, but now it becomes
clear that some basic complex feature classes
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
The ones in xsd-core work only on SimpleFeatures. I never really
understood their use, why would you need an x-path on a simple feature
anyway? In any case, the complex x-path accessor should work on simple
features too as
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:06 AM, Andrea Aime andrea.a...@geo-solutions.itwrote:
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
The ones in xsd-core work only on SimpleFeatures. I never really
understood their use, why would you need an x-path on a simple feature
anyway?
On 12/28/2012 07:34 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi,
I did not see a review from Jody so far, so I've tried to make one myself
instead (and seen that Rini made a review for the app-schema part last
week).
I did not do a line by line review, but from what I see things are
looking good.
I do
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
A pull request has been sent:
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/pull/88
I assigned Rini, I guess she will be reviewing it? I also need a review
for the changes in gt-main, I suppose Jody?
Hi,
I did not see a review
Hi Ben,
That is what I meant, proceed to the next step. I will of course let the
actual patch still be reviewed.
Kind Regards
Niels
On 12/18/2012 04:13 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
On 17/12/12 18:58, Niels Charlier wrote:
Cool, with no more objections and a +1 from the module maintainer and
On 12/18/2012 04:13 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
On 17/12/12 18:58, Niels Charlier wrote:
Cool, with no more objections and a +1 from the module maintainer and a
few others I guess I can proceed?
That depends what you mean by proceed: +1 is for the overarching API
change proposal (which
: Re: [Geotools-devel] proposal: Separate general complex feature
classes from gt-app-schema
On 12/18/2012 04:13 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
On 17/12/12 18:58, Niels Charlier wrote:
Cool, with no more objections and a +1 from the module maintainer and
a few others I guess I can proceed
Cool, with no more objections and a +1 from the module maintainer and a
few others I guess I can proceed?
Cheers
Niels
On 12/14/2012 02:37 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be
mailto:ni...@scitus.be wrote:
Okay, I now changed the
On 17/12/12 18:58, Niels Charlier wrote:
Cool, with no more objections and a +1 from the module maintainer and a
few others I guess I can proceed?
That depends what you mean by proceed: +1 is for the overarching API
change proposal (which classes are in which modules). In my view, you
should
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au wrote:
Niels, that is a very good point. Andrea, there is a bunch of XSD stuff
like substitution groups that are not represented in GeoAPI. It makes it
quite tricky to break this dependency. Niels knows because he
Okay, I now changed the proposal to move everything to main that can be
moved to main.
Please have a look at the updated version.
I hope we can get the needed +1's as soon as possible.
Cheers
Niels
On 12/14/2012 09:37 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:02 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
Okay, I now changed the proposal to move everything to main that can be
moved to main.
Please have a look at the updated version.
I hope we can get the needed +1's as soon as possible.
Works for me, +1
Cheers
Andrea
The XPath processor takes XSD information out of the user data in order
to evaluate xml @attributes. That is why it is dependant on it.
On 12/13/2012 08:09 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be
mailto:ni...@scitus.be wrote:
Well apart from
Okay I would suggest we could maybe all have an IRC meeting so that we
can come to a final consensus about what to do that everyone can be
happy with? we really need to move forward with this as next week this
project needs to be finished.
On 12/13/2012 04:15 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
It
Niels, that is a very good point. Andrea, there is a bunch of XSD stuff
like substitution groups that are not represented in GeoAPI. It makes it
quite tricky to break this dependency. Niels knows because he
implemented a lot of it.
As future work, we could look at refactoring the way XSD
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
The Proposal:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Separate+general+complex+feature+classes+from+gt-app-schema
Please vote, or provide criticism.
Scratch scratch, could you clarify what dependencies would one
[INFO] org.geotools:gt-complex:jar:9-SNAPSHOT
[INFO] +- org.geotools:gt-app-schema-resolver:jar:9-SNAPSHOT:compile
[INFO] | +- org.geotools.xsd:gt-xsd-core:jar:9-SNAPSHOT:compile
[INFO] | | +- org.geotools:gt-graph:jar:9-SNAPSHOT:compile
[INFO] | | | \-
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
[INFO] org.geotools:gt-complex:jar:9-SNAPSHOT
[INFO] +- org.geotools:gt-app-schema-resolver:jar:9-SNAPSHOT:compile
[INFO] | +- org.geotools.xsd:gt-xsd-core:jar:9-SNAPSHOT:compile
[INFO] | | +-
I see. So what you'd suggest we move a bunch of that stuff in to gt-main.
I have to have a look at which part will still remain. Perhaps too
little to keep in a separate package. Maybe we should still move that
stuff into gt-appschema-resolver but keep the name?
On 12/12/2012 01:56 PM,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
I see. So what you'd suggest we move a bunch of that stuff in to gt-main.
I have to have a look at which part will still remain. Perhaps too little
to keep in a separate package. Maybe we should still move that stuff into
Well apart from the feature type parser, there is another important part
in the module that relies on xsd stuff, i.e. the xpath property
accessor. This I think is a very important part of complex features;
without this you can't have filters on complex features.
The only thing that really
It would be good if users could build and manipulate complex types and
features without ever touching XML or needing an XML dependency. For
example, they could build types and features programatically. Other
output formats include JSON; complex relationships can be represented in
JSON-LD.
On
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Niels Charlier ni...@scitus.be wrote:
Well apart from the feature type parser, there is another important part
in the module that relies on xsd stuff, i.e. the xpath property accessor.
This I think is a very important part of complex features; without this you
The Proposal:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Separate+general+complex+feature+classes+from+gt-app-schema
Please vote, or provide criticism.
Kind Regards
Niels Charlier
--
LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime
+1. This change is long overdue and much needed. I have asked Rini and
Adam to review the proposal. gt-app-schema changes should go for review
to Rini as component lead.
Kind regards,
Ben.
On 11/12/12 19:15, Niels Charlier wrote:
The Proposal:
26 matches
Mail list logo
