GeoAPI

Finish the creation of Java interfaces for geometries

Details

  • Type: Task Task
  • Status: Open Open
  • Priority: Major Major
  • Resolution: Unresolved
  • Affects Version/s: 1.0, 2.0
  • Fix Version/s: None
  • Component/s: geometry
  • Labels:
    None
  • Number of attachments :
    0

Description

Interfaces were created in the order the appears in the ISO 19107 specification, up to (only partially included) GM_Conic. The rest of Java interfaces for geometries need to be created using the skeleton already available.

Special care must be taken regarding javadoc. The ISO 19107 has a very accurate documentation, with a fair amount of figures and equations. Javadoc is the longuest task during Java interface creation, and should not be skipped.

Issue Links

depends upon

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-14 Clash in the semantic of contains(...) method in CompositeCurve

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-138 Require Position homogeneity in PointArray

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-148 Rename CurveSegement.getCurve() to .getContainingCurve()

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-154 Define complex.Complex.getBoundary():ComplexBoundary, overriding the method from Geometry

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-155 Define (primitive.)Boundary.getBoundary() to return null

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-84 Incorrect return type on Polygon method

  • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-88 Unidirectional "Composition" aggregation implemented in the backwards direction too.

  • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-149 Add a parameterless length() method to GenericCurve

  • Minor - Minor loss of function, or other problem where easy workaround is present.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.

Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. GEO-52 Geometry interfaces in wrong package

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Reopened - This issue was once resolved, but the resolution was deemed incorrect. From here issues are either marked assigned or resolved.

Task - A task that needs to be done. GEO-201 Align the geometry interfaces on the latest ISO 19107 draft

  • Major - Major loss of function.
  • Open - The issue is open and ready for the assignee to start work on it.
is duplicated by

Task - A task that needs to be done. GEOT-93 Create GeoAPI interfaces from OGC 2001-101 / ISO 19107

  • Blocker - Blocks development and/or testing work, production could not run
  • Closed - The issue is considered finished, the resolution is correct. Issues which are not closed can be reopened.

Activity

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
Hide
Permalink
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment -

GeoAPI issues are now tracked on http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEO.

Show
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment - GeoAPI issues are now tracked on http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEO .
Hide
Permalink
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment -

Added remaining interfaces for the "geometry" package. The "aggregate" package is now next on the list.

Show
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment - Added remaining interfaces for the "geometry" package. The "aggregate" package is now next on the list.
Hide
Permalink
Bryce Nordgren added a comment -

Martin, the "coordinate geometry" package (Section 6.4 in ISO/DIS 19107) seems to be divided between java packages
"org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry" and "org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry.geometry". Can we combine these two java packages into one?

Is there a rationale for the division?

Show
Bryce Nordgren added a comment - Martin, the "coordinate geometry" package (Section 6.4 in ISO/DIS 19107) seems to be divided between java packages "org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry" and "org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry.geometry". Can we combine these two java packages into one? Is there a rationale for the division?
Hide
Permalink
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment -

The "org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry" package contained originaly the "root" classes in ISO 19107 terms. A few classes from section 6.4 were also put in this package because they seemed extensively used (DirectPosition, Envelope).

However, generally speaking, I'm unhappy with the package names in GeoAPI for the geometry part. I dislike especially "org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry.geometry" First, the repetition of "geometry" is not very nice. Second, I would have liked to drop the "spatialschema" part.

The mean problem is: are we allowed to change the package names, given that some implementations may already exists?

Show
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment - The " org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry " package contained originaly the "root" classes in ISO 19107 terms. A few classes from section 6.4 were also put in this package because they seemed extensively used ( DirectPosition , Envelope ). However, generally speaking, I'm unhappy with the package names in GeoAPI for the geometry part. I dislike especially " org.opengis.spatialschema.geometry.geometry " First, the repetition of " geometry " is not very nice. Second, I would have liked to drop the " spatialschema " part. The mean problem is: are we allowed to change the package names, given that some implementations may already exists?
Hide
Permalink
Bryce Nordgren added a comment -

Well, I looked around and I couldn't find any 19107 implementations except that one GT inherited from Sys Technologies. The bigger problem is the "non-implementations", the ones which just implement "DirectPosition" and "Envelope". Those might cause some heartburn if moved. We could "deprecate, then delete" in two successive release cycles.

If we're going to do anything, though, we should do it sooner rather than later. I think people are starting to want 19107 implementations due to the fact that more standards are being released which use geometry as a building block.

I agree totally about both naming issues. Perhaps "...geometry.geometry" could be "...geometry.coordinate" and spatialschema could just disappear?

Show
Bryce Nordgren added a comment - Well, I looked around and I couldn't find any 19107 implementations except that one GT inherited from Sys Technologies. The bigger problem is the "non-implementations", the ones which just implement "DirectPosition" and "Envelope". Those might cause some heartburn if moved. We could "deprecate, then delete" in two successive release cycles. If we're going to do anything, though, we should do it sooner rather than later. I think people are starting to want 19107 implementations due to the fact that more standards are being released which use geometry as a building block. I agree totally about both naming issues. Perhaps "...geometry.geometry" could be "...geometry.coordinate" and spatialschema could just disappear?
Hide
Permalink
Bryce Nordgren added a comment -

NOTE: The "...geometry.aggregate" package is incomplete. It's missing MultiSurface and MultiSolid. Should this be tracked under a different issue?

Show
Bryce Nordgren added a comment - NOTE: The "...geometry.aggregate" package is incomplete. It's missing MultiSurface and MultiSolid. Should this be tracked under a different issue?
Hide
Permalink
Bryce Nordgren added a comment -

The discussion of relocating packages/classes seems germane to GEO-52, which is closed as "wontfix". If we do anything to the packages, maybe these others could be rearranged as well?

Show
Bryce Nordgren added a comment - The discussion of relocating packages/classes seems germane to GEO-52 , which is closed as "wontfix". If we do anything to the packages, maybe these others could be rearranged as well?
Hide
Permalink
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment -

I would agree about dropping the "spatialschema" part and renaming the last "geometry" into something else (or move its content to the parent "geometry" package). I also believe that the two successive release cycles ("deprecate, then delete") would work at least in a J2SE 1.5 environment (because "covariant return type" would be of great help there). I'm not sure how we could do that in a J2SE 1.4 environment however.

We may propose that to OGC, and I agree that it would need to be done soon. We may target the OGC meeting in october 2006, since it is the only one I can attend in the next few months.

As you rightly point out, the "..geometry.aggregate" package is incomplete. The full topology package is also missing. I didn't had the time to finish them. They are actually the subject of this GEO-1 task. "Renaming geometry packages" should be a different JIRA task.

GEOT-52 was about moving 5 very specific interfaces; it was not a general discussion about package renaming. It was closed as "will not fix" simply because after more investigation, it appeared that those 5 interfaces were actually at the right place.

Show
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment - I would agree about dropping the " spatialschema " part and renaming the last " geometry " into something else (or move its content to the parent " geometry " package). I also believe that the two successive release cycles ("deprecate, then delete") would work at least in a J2SE 1.5 environment (because "covariant return type" would be of great help there). I'm not sure how we could do that in a J2SE 1.4 environment however. We may propose that to OGC, and I agree that it would need to be done soon. We may target the OGC meeting in october 2006, since it is the only one I can attend in the next few months. As you rightly point out, the " ..geometry.aggregate " package is incomplete. The full topology package is also missing. I didn't had the time to finish them. They are actually the subject of this GEO-1 task. "Renaming geometry packages" should be a different JIRA task. GEOT-52 was about moving 5 very specific interfaces; it was not a general discussion about package renaming. It was closed as "will not fix" simply because after more investigation, it appeared that those 5 interfaces were actually at the right place.
Hide
Permalink
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment -

Typo: GEOT-52 above should have been GEO-52.

Show
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment - Typo: GEOT-52 above should have been GEO-52 .
Hide
Permalink
Jody Garnett added a comment -

Martin can we close this bug now?

Show
Jody Garnett added a comment - Martin can we close this bug now?
Hide
Permalink
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment -

Do we have finished to create an interface for all ISO 19107 elements? It seems to me that we have not finished some packages like aggregates, and all topology interfaces?

Show
Martin Desruisseaux added a comment - Do we have finished to create an interface for all ISO 19107 elements? It seems to me that we have not finished some packages like aggregates, and all topology interfaces?

People

  • Assignee:
    Martin Desruisseaux
    Reporter:
    Martin Desruisseaux
Vote (0)
Watch (1)

Dates

  • Created:
    Updated:

Time Tracking

Estimated:
2w
Original Estimate - 2 weeks
Remaining:
1w 6d 17h
Time Spent - 7 hours Remaining Estimate - 1 week, 6 days, 17 hours
Logged:
7h
Time Spent - 7 hours Remaining Estimate - 1 week, 6 days, 17 hours