RE: [Geotools-devel] Tree structure in Geotools 2's CVS

[Ian T. <ia...@ge...>]

At 20:00 07/05/02, Rob Hranac wrote:
>Martin et. al.,
>
> > I realise that tools like Ant and Netbeans can make the job easier.
> > However, they are not trivial to set up, and some time I really like
>to
>
>I am with James on this one; I think that the hassle (minimal) of
>setting up Ant is worth the payback (major) of having it; and you don't
>need NetBeans at all.  As far as the other stuff - in terms of how to
>spread out directories, etc. - I am in agreement that it is not perfect,
>but it is not at all difficult to modify, given the current structure,
>which is part of its charm, I think.

Another vote for the status quo here - I like the flexibility it gives and 
ant isn't that hard to install.


>On a related topic, I think that some of the package names are getting
>out of control.  One specific proposal I would have is to create a top
>level package:
>         org.geotools.data
>Which would then have abbreviated subpackages, by data source:
>         org.geotools.data.shape
>         org.geotools.data.gml
>         org.geotools.data.postgis
>         etc...

I like this idea too

>The current structure of:
>         org.geotools.gmldatasource
>         org.geotools.shapefile
>Is overly verbose and fails to group conceptually similar packages,
>IMHO.  I also think some of the core stuff needs to be refactored, but

Ian