Mike,
On 03.02.2017 18:52, Michaël Michaud wrote:
> I agree that related code should stay together, but "related" is "vague".
i am talking about obvious relations, like eg. Wizard framework and the new
SaveWizard belong into one package.
or
the GeoJSON reader ended up where the other io readers
On 05.02.2017 01:32, Stefan Steiniger wrote:
> Hey,
>
> well, the decision to split was rather practical as Jump was still under
> development at the time of the first OJ versions. So this way we would know
ahh, i remember. those were the days ;).. seems like you maintain OJ since ages
already
<<< text/html; charset=utf-8: Unrecognized >>>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Ju
Hi,
Indeed, I regret from the beginning that we have split the code into
com.vividsolutions
and org.openjump as it is quite difficult to find things.
I agree that related code should stay together, but "related" is "vague".
If you have more specific rules, we can discuss about it (but a
theoret
Sorry for the bad English: after all the day at job (all the week with
school ballots) even my English became pomposo e ambiguous
:-)
2017-02-02 17:54 GMT+01:00 Giuseppe Aruta :
> > i prefer to have code that belongs together in one place
> I personally prefer the same too.
> On the other hand, k
> i prefer to have code that belongs together in one place
I personally prefer the same too.
On the other hand, keeping two separate packages can have some advantages,
just in case we sholud have problems with the copyright for
com/vividsolutions/jump (probably not considering the GPL but we don't
we should probably talk about placing classes in general. i prefer to have code
that belongs together in one place.
i don't recall an instance that i placed code under org.openjump , because when
i added eg. something to wms and that was placed under com.vividsolutions, the
additions went there
