//I am aware that a proper EPSG database upgrade hinges on a new db engine for GeoTools etc etc...[1]
But I am wondering whether we, in time for GS 2.0, should create an alias (EPSG:3785) for EPSG:900913 ?
Just so that we can update our docs with the correct code and not encourage further use of EPSG:900913.
-Arne
///
1: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-2493
/
--
Arne Kepp
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers
Well I think it would be easy enough to add a entry to the user projections file that we ship with the data directory. We would have to add some notes to people upgrading though using a previous data dir, that they should update the file.
Another alternative might be to add the definition directly in code in during the initialization of the referencing sub system.
Arne Kepp wrote:
//I am aware that a proper EPSG database upgrade hinges on a new db engine for GeoTools etc etc...[1]
But I am wondering whether we, in time for GS 2.0, should create an alias (EPSG:3785) for EPSG:900913 ?
Just so that we can update our docs with the correct code and not encourage further use of EPSG:900913.
-Arne
///
1: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-2493/
--
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
Well I think it would be easy enough to add a entry to the user projections file that we ship with the data directory. We would have to add some notes to people upgrading though using a previous data dir, that they should update the file.
Yep, this would work and when we upgrade the EPSG database we'd
get the official definition instead.
Another alternative might be to add the definition directly in code in during the initialization of the referencing sub system.
This can be done as well by adding another authority factory that
is custom programmed to just add 3785. A bit cumbersome for us,
but would save users issues when upgrading old data dirs.
Mind that neither approaches would add the definition to the
standalone GWC, but the latter could be copied over so that
standalone GWC has the extra definition as well.
I prefer the latter. What about you?
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
Andrea Aime wrote:
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
Well I think it would be easy enough to add a entry to the user projections file that we ship with the data directory. We would have to add some notes to people upgrading though using a previous data dir, that they should update the file.
Yep, this would work and when we upgrade the EPSG database we'd
get the official definition instead.Another alternative might be to add the definition directly in code in during the initialization of the referencing sub system.
This can be done as well by adding another authority factory that
is custom programmed to just add 3785. A bit cumbersome for us,
but would save users issues when upgrading old data dirs.Mind that neither approaches would add the definition to the
standalone GWC, but the latter could be copied over so that
standalone GWC has the extra definition as well.I prefer the latter. What about you?
Cheers
Andrea
Just a minor note: 3785 has already been deprecated in favor of 3857 which, as far as I can tell, is exactly the same thing. Annoying. I have no opinion whether another factory is the way to go, and I assume that question was aimed at Justin anyway.
I'm still working out the details, but GWC should be able to figure out that all three are the same thing, and make it configurable whether to ask for 900913 or 3857 from the backend. It's really from a documentation point of view that I think it will be better to have one instead of two (three) codes for the same thing.
-Arne