Title: Message Title
Sante Barbuto created
Thanks to everyone who submitted feedback on the idea, I’ve incorporated it
into the proposal and I would like to call for a formal vote.
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/JDBC-Callbacks
Thanks!
-Justin
--
Chec
Hello All,
The GeoTools 17-beta / GeoServer 2.11-beta and GeoTools 16.2 / GeoServer
2.10.2 releases are scheduled for February 18, so please get any fixes you
want included in these releases merged and backported to the appropriate
branch by the end of the week.
We are planning on doing the relea
Thanks Justin, +1 on the proposal and thanks for the clear/quick discussion.
--
Jody Garnett
On 13 February 2017 at 05:25, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I’ve incorporated Jody’s feedback and updated the proposal, and submitted
> a pull request.
>
> https://github.com/geotools/geoto
I added my +1, and provided a review for your pull request.
--
Jody Garnett
On 15 February 2017 at 06:32, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who submitted feedback on the idea, I’ve incorporated
> it into the proposal and I would like to call for a formal vote.
>
> https://github.
Thanks Jody!
I’ve address most of the feedback minus the comment about using the factory
finder… didn’t quite follow that one.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:42 AM Jody Garnett
wrote:
I added my +1, and provided a review for your pull request.
--
Jody Garnett
On 15 February 2017 at 06:32, Justin
+1.
My only comment is that the system property could perhaps be called
"geotools.jdbc.callback" rather than "gt2.jdbc.callback".
Kind regards,
Ben.
On 16/02/17 03:32, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who submitted feedback on the idea, I’ve incorporated it
> into the proposal and
Thanks Ben! As mentioned on the pull request I was following the only other
system property for jdbc I found: “gt2.jdbc.trace”. I do prefer your
suggestion aesthetically but I think I would stick with the consistency if
it were my call. But if folks feel strongly about it happy to change it as
wel
