Re: [Geotools-devel] Directory naming conventions?

[James M. <j.m...@ge...>]

I've just got back from the London OGC and I'm just starting to catch up 
with e.mail.

It will take me a little longer to get up to speed on the Extents 
discussion so I'll start with this one :-)

At 12:18 13/06/2002 +0200, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>However, I though that we were going to change the naming convention of 
>>directories to be all lower case.  Is that so?  And if this is the case, 
>>James, you may want to change the directory structure.

Yes, the plan is to change the names of those modules to lower case, I just 
need to find some time on a *nix box to do it because windows doesn't think 
there is a difference and that makes it quite hard to make the change in CVS.

>I agree with that. I wonder if it would be possible to reduce the amount 
>of modules. Could me merge "defaultcore" into "core"? "defaultcore" define 
>classes in the same package then "core"; would it be easier to have them 
>in a single module?

This seems to go away from the reason the modules were set up in the first 
place.  i.e. To identify seperable or replacable sets of classes.  Core 
contains only interfaces and exceptions and whilst defaultcore is our only 
implementation of core at the moment there may be others in the future 
(j2me for example)  If defaultcores code was inside core it would not be 
clear where the separation was.

>Do we need to have "awtRendering" and "Java2DRendering" in separate 
>modules? What about just a "rendering" module with 
>"org.geotools.renderer.awt" and "org.geotools.renderer.j2d" package name? 
>I would prefer to put Java2D and AWT renderers in their their own package.

Yes, the two definitely need to be in separate modules, it is very unlikely 
that anyone would want both modules at the same time so having them as 
separate modules enables people to ignore one of them.

I know there are now a lot of modules, and if you are not interested in all 
of them it it can be a bit overwhelming.  The solution I was planning on 
was to change the way we check geotools2 code out of CVS.  Instead of a 
single checkout you would check out only the modules you are interested 
in.  At that point you would not see awtrendering at all, similarly you may 
decide to omit shapefile, postgis or others as you see fit.

To do this transparently I need to set up module definitions within the 
cvsroot files.  This was not a priority for me early on but as the number 
of modules increases it is clearly becoming more important.

Your second point about separate packages is, I think, valid however as it 
removes the potential for name conflicts and reduces confusion in the JavaDoc.

Hope the above makes sense, if not I'll have another shot when I'm a little 
more awake.

James

-- 
James Macgill
Center for Computational Geography
Spell Checker (c) Creative Spelling inc (aka my dyslexic brain)
http://www.geotools.org  the open source java mapping toolkit.