Hi,
so I think I have reached a point where wcs 1.1.1 is ready to
be included into GeoServer as an officially supported module.
It is unit tested and seems to be getting along fine with
wcs 1.0 (the dispatcher can figure out which one to call
using the "version" parameters so no integration work is needed).
Cobertura reports a code coverage varying between 40% and 95%,
with most packages with a code coverage over 80% (the 40% one
is the code generated by javacc, which I simply don't use
completely). This does not mean there aren't bugs, unfortunately
the GetCoverage code resampling does not work, fixing it
won't be exactly trivial, yet I don't see this as an impediment
to get the module in supported land (supported modules do
have bugs, haven't they?).
Oh, the module also depends on two emf model modules, that is,
net.opengis.wcs.v1_1_1 and net.opengis.ows.v1_1_0, which
may be moved to gt2 otherwise?
Cheers
Andrea
Hi Andrea,
Great work. I have one request... and its very anal and nitpicky but i
think we should try to be consistent. Its with respect to version
numbers in module names. I think it would be nice if we consistently
across the board stuck to 2 digits for version numbers. The rationale
being that we are probably never going to break out a new module for a
change in the patch part of a service.
There is also how to separate version from the name. Should it be wcs11,
or wcs-11. Once more is how to separate parts of the version number.
wcs1.1,wcs1_1,etc... you get the picture.
I would like to stick to this convention for the emf models as well when
we move them to geotools. Again... apologies if this is silly... but
have this unexplainable need for consistency when it comes to naming 
-Justin
Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi,
so I think I have reached a point where wcs 1.1.1 is ready to
be included into GeoServer as an officially supported module.
It is unit tested and seems to be getting along fine with
wcs 1.0 (the dispatcher can figure out which one to call
using the "version" parameters so no integration work is needed).
Cobertura reports a code coverage varying between 40% and 95%,
with most packages with a code coverage over 80% (the 40% one
is the code generated by javacc, which I simply don't use
completely). This does not mean there aren't bugs, unfortunately
the GetCoverage code resampling does not work, fixing it
won't be exactly trivial, yet I don't see this as an impediment
to get the module in supported land (supported modules do
have bugs, haven't they?).
Oh, the module also depends on two emf model modules, that is,
net.opengis.wcs.v1_1_1 and net.opengis.ows.v1_1_0, which
may be moved to gt2 otherwise?
Cheers
Andrea
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
!DSPAM:4007,47962387271991804284693!
--
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
Hi Andrea,
Great work. I have one request... and its very anal and nitpicky but i
think we should try to be consistent. Its with respect to version
numbers in module names. I think it would be nice if we consistently
across the board stuck to 2 digits for version numbers. The rationale
being that we are probably never going to break out a new module for a
change in the patch part of a service.
There is also how to separate version from the name. Should it be wcs11,
or wcs-11. Once more is how to separate parts of the version number.
wcs1.1,wcs1_1,etc... you get the picture.
wcs1_1 it is then, does this sound ok?
I would like to stick to this convention for the emf models as well when
we move them to geotools. Again... apologies if this is silly... but
have this unexplainable need for consistency when it comes to naming
No problemo. What about the emf moduls thought. Shall I move them
up for the time being? I guess so, since otherwise wcs1_1 would depend
on community stuff.
Cheers
Andrea
Andrea Aime ha scritto:
No problemo. What about the emf moduls thought. Shall I move them
up for the time being? I guess so, since otherwise wcs1_1 would depend
on community stuff.
Well, I just moved everything up. Update and see, and if you prefer
a different naming scheme, no problem, let's talk about it briefly
and then roll in the changes.
Cheers
Andrea