David and all,
thanks for mentioning deegree. We at lat/lon (- especially Ugo) are
contributing to OpenJUMP for quite some time and I hope we will in the
future develop more and more plug-ins (also see Email from Jan
describing the WFS plugin). We also have plans for extending the Feature
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
I feel like I have opened Pandora's Box with my blog post on the challenges
of adopting the GeoTools Feature Model in OpenJUMP. This has made me realize
how powerful, and dangerous, a single blog post can be.
Still, I believe an important issue has been raised. I am now trying to
grapple with
Justin,
Your comments will be very helpful to me. I think it would be prudent to
stick with the stable version of GeoTools for my work on a converter between
OpenJUMP and GeoTools feature.
The Sunburned Surveyor
On 4/20/07, Justin Deoliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Edgar,
PS: aren't
