|
From: Ian T. <ia...@ge...> - 2002-05-07 20:31:54
|
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 |