Re: [JPP-Devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread David Zwiers
SS, I read briefly over your blog, and noticed that you have not taken stability or product maturity into account. In my opinion GT does not have either of these components, as can be seen by the rapidly changing API (version 2.1 is not even a drop-in for version 2.0!). I am only making this

Re: [JPP-Devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread Sunburned Surveyor
David, I really value your input on this, since you have a lot more knowledge of GeoTools than I do. I was going to ask you about this directly, but I know that you are busy. I'm leaning towards the solution of using a GeoTools-To-JUMP Featuer converter. It's really a question of what will take

Re: [JPP-Devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread Sunburned Surveyor
David (and other OpenJUMP developers), I should add that the GeoTools folks did quickly respond to my inquiry on their mailing list about the Shapefile code. One of their developers mentioned that their are no current plans to Feature interface. They also seem to be open to the idea of accepting

Re: [JPP-Devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread Frank Warmerdam
Sunburned Surveyor wrote: David (and other OpenJUMP developers), I should add that the GeoTools folks did quickly respond to my inquiry on their mailing list about the Shapefile code. One of their developers mentioned that their are no current plans to Feature interface. They also seem

Re: [JPP-Devel] [Geotools-devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread Jody Garnett
Thanks for the email Frank - your comments are spot on. It often seems are run out of time and push something bad out the door - and then spend years sorting out what is right. I kind of wish we would do more gradual changes and set ourselves up to improve over time. It often seems we struggle

Re: [JPP-Devel] [Geotools-devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread Edgar Soldin
Hello Frank, Jody, Landon and all ... this is exactly what my problem was back in 2004! .. imagine an impressible powerful graphic user interface for editing (jump) but not using the all the power of geotools ... still things were/are not that different, for my thesis i wrote a (simple)

Re: [JPP-Devel] [Geotools-devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread Sunburned Surveyor
Edgar wrote: wonder why Vivid Solutions .. and other contributors too (since 2004! when i got involved into osgis) are not using the readily available power of geotools2 to implement useful features like reprojection or geotools datasource modules ... why is that so? I think the reason for

[JPP-Devel] Solution for working with two feature models???

2007-04-19 Thread Sunburned Surveyor
I thought of another possible solution to working with the two different feature models in GeoTools and OpenJUMP. We could have an object that implements both Feature interfaces. We could call the class ExchangeFeature or something like that. This would eliminate the need for a converter, but

Re: [JPP-Devel] Solution for working with two feature models???

2007-04-19 Thread Martin Davis
I would vote for having converters in and out of the GT Feature model as required. It's only really needed for I/O, right? For other functionality, use the raw functionality provided by GT (such as coordinate transformations) and develop a JUMP-specific API on top of it. One of JUMP's big

Re: [JPP-Devel] [Geotools-devel] Requesting some thoughts on GeoTools...

2007-04-19 Thread Martin Davis
Well, perhaps you're right, Frank. These days a few meg one way or the other doesn't make much difference. At least GDAL has a nice stable API, which encourages people to commit to depending on it. Certainly the idea of having One core API to rule them all is appealing. Perhaps someone will