I got this from simone - they're going to have more details after a
meeting next week...
dave
---------------------
Hi Dave,
Basically we are trying to pursue two different paths:
1>Refining and improving actual implementation of geotools coverage
packages and plugins in order to achieve the development of a decent
WCS.
2>Studing the new ISO19123 and comparing them with the old ones in
order to start with the transition (which is going to be quite
difficult).
Transition to ISO19123 is not going to be painless, that's quite clear
to me, therefore we decided to adopt the afore mentioned approach
intead of just dropping the old classes and start building everything
again. What worries me the most about GeoTools and coverages
implementation is that sometimes it gives the impression that it is
always changing ergo it is unusable.
We want to change that, absolutely. We will try to bring things as far
as possible with the actual interfaces and implementations while at
the same time studying for the next version. We want to have something
stable before forking to new implementations.
Next week Bryce Nordergren will be here at NURC and we discuss how to
proceed, there also two master students, one from Italy and one from
US who want to join the effort, therefore after that meeting we should
be able to come up with a more defined time frame and todo list.
By the way, whoever feels like helping, with any possible mean, is
gladly encourage to send an email and join the effort!
Simone.
On 10/3/05, dblasby@anonymised.com <dblasby@anonymised.com> wrote:
I wanted to just check-in and see whats happening with the WCS branch
(and the WMS-raster work).
What is the plan for the future and is there a timeframe?
dave
----------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: https://webmail.limegroup.com/
Hi all,
the WCS branch is constantly aligned with GeoServer trunk and Dave’s work.
The most important differences are :
- GeoTools 2.2.x
- epsg-hsql
However I think should not be a problem to build a release fully compatible with Geoserver 1.3.0
With the old GeoTools and epsg-wkt maybe will not be possible to reproject rasters.
However once the BandSelect will be ready (the GeoTools SampleDimension needs at least a description to work correctly) I think that we can put out a decent WCS/WMS-raster release.
On 10/5/05, dblasby@anonymised.com <dblasby@anonymised.com> wrote:
I got this from simone - they’re going to have more details after a
meeting next week…
dave
Hi Dave,
Basically we are trying to pursue two different paths:
1>Refining and improving actual implementation of geotools coverage
packages and plugins in order to achieve the development of a decent
WCS.
2>Studing the new ISO19123 and comparing them with the old ones in
order to start with the transition (which is going to be quite
difficult).
Transition to ISO19123 is not going to be painless, that’s quite clear
to me, therefore we decided to adopt the afore mentioned approach
intead of just dropping the old classes and start building everything
again. What worries me the most about GeoTools and coverages
implementation is that sometimes it gives the impression that it is
always changing ergo it is unusable.
We want to change that, absolutely. We will try to bring things as far
as possible with the actual interfaces and implementations while at
the same time studying for the next version. We want to have something
stable before forking to new implementations.
Next week Bryce Nordergren will be here at NURC and we discuss how to
proceed, there also two master students, one from Italy and one from
US who want to join the effort, therefore after that meeting we should
be able to come up with a more defined time frame and todo list.
By the way, whoever feels like helping, with any possible mean, is
gladly encourage to send an email and join the effort!
Simone.
On 10/3/05, dblasby@anonymised.com <dblasby@anonymised.com> wrote:
I wanted to just check-in and see whats happening with the WCS branch
(and the WMS-raster work).
What is the plan for the future and is there a timeframe?
dave
This mail sent through IMP: https://webmail.limegroup.com/
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel