On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> I guess I prefer this approach the best, without GeoServer prefixes in the
>> mix.
>> Do we also want to move the classes to another package that is not .gs
>> something?
>>
>
> Yeah, I think that make sense. I was thinking that we could
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
>
>> C. Categorization based on "space" (raster vs vector). Geometry would
>> remain the same and those processes that both input/output as vector would
>> remain in the vector catego
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> C. Categorization based on "space" (raster vs vector). Geometry would
> remain the same and those processes that both input/output as vector would
> remain in the vector category and those that have both input/output as
> raster would rem
Hi Justin,
As the author of the vector to raster bits I'd be happy to see that
factory folded into another. It is not separate for any good reason.
Michael
On 14 August 2012 09:23, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Recently on the geoserver list a thread was started regarding how processes
