Re: [Geotools-devel] Renderedfeature considerations

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

At 21:36 10/01/03, Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
>Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>I see the potential for a number of different renderers as you optimise 
>>for speed/size/accuracy/simplicity.
>>Hence I vote for 2 in order to distinguish between them, with common 
>>classes being stored in org.geotools.renderer if needed.
>>Ie:
>>org.geotools.rendering - contains common classes
>>org.geotools.rendering.j2d contains standard functionality with all features
>>org.geotools.rendering.j2dsimple No coordinateTransforms, 
>>org.geotools.rendering.svg - contains svg rendering
>>etc.
>
>
>Sound like that subpackage like 'j2d' get strong support. Is there other 
>proposal for the subpackage name? It is possible (not sure yet) that some 
>Swing interface may be usefull too. I'm thinking especially about the 
>javax.swing.Action interface. Since Swing always use Java2D for rendering 
>anyway, a 'swing' package name may make sence and would be consistent with 
>org.geotools.gui.swing (where MapPanel live). But is it to much honour to 
>name the whole package Swing because (and if) we une one or two swing 
>interfaces?
>
>An other proposal may be 'awt', since Graphics2D is really part of 
>java.awt. We was used to think of 'awt' has the old JDK 1.1 Graphics, but 
>it may be too restrictive. An advantage of 'awt' is that it would be 
>symetric with 'swt', the IBM's toolkit from Eclipse project.
>
>Proposal are 'j2d', 'awt', 'swing'. Any advice or other proposal? I'm 
>tempted by 'awt'...

I like this idea, especially if we build a rendererFactory to hide all of 
this from the end user. As for awt I think many people still consider that 
to refer only to 1.1

Ian