0) what is up
2) FeatureCollection cleanup
4) filters aren't fun
acuster: salut martin
acuster: ca va?
desruisseaux: Hi Adrian
acuster has changed the topic to: Meet'in time
groldan left the room (quit: "Konversation terminated!").
acuster: vous avez une réunion de rendering demain, non?
acuster: vincent viens de dire que ton travail sur le renderer ne sera qu'en janvier. J'ai bien compris?
groldan firstname.lastname@example.org entered the room.
acuster has changed the topic to: Meet'in time: 0) what is up ...put your topics here...
aaime email@example.com entered the room.
aaime has changed the topic to: Meet'in time: 0) what is up 1) DataStore.close()
jdeolive has changed the topic to: Meet'in time: 0) what is up 1) DataStore.close() 2) FeatureCollection cleanup
jgarnett: I have a question;
jgarnett: does anyone feel like doing osgeo stuff today?
jgarnett: if not I wont put it on the agenda
iant_ firstname.lastname@example.org entered the room.
jgarnett: bah we have enough of the PMC here ...
jgarnett has changed the topic to: Meet'in time: 0) what is up 1) DataStore.close() 2) FeatureCollection cleanup 3) iccubation
***acuster still has to get out a writeup of the copyright situation
desruisseaux: I would like to do OSGEO stuff if you have any new on it
jgarnett: okay coo; anything else for the meeting ...
jdeolive: yeah, whats up with codehaus being so darn slow
desruisseaux: Glad to see I'm not the only one to wait for codehaus for many hours...
jdeolive: yeah... i have noticed its been like that for about a week or so now
groldan: over the weekend svn were broken too, codehaus sucks since friday at least for me
jgarnett: slow for me too; anyone talked to #codehaus ?
acuster: can one of you explain the 'filters are broken' thing?
acuster: I hear rumors since victoria that filters are a complete, unfixable mess
aaime: since Victoria?
***groldan joined #codehaus and found him alone
aaime: I've been saying that a code sprint (few days of) is needed to fix them since the summer
jdeolive: groldan: you have use irc.codehaus.org
jdeolive: not freenode
***groldan knew it has to be his fault
acuster: aaime, what needs to be fixed? what's using geoapi and what's using gt-filter?
acuster: is it a datastore/core split of some kind?
aaime: datastores are still mainly using gt2 filters
aaime: and there are lots of filter visitors too
jgarnett: style uses mostly gt2 filters too as far as I know
aaime: It's not as big as the change we made in the code sprint at Victoria
aaime: but not nearly as mechanic
jgarnett: acuster some code directly casts to "AbstractFilter" class; when you make your own filter by hand (say in uDig) the geotools code that tries this trick breaks
aaime: So I'd say the effort is somewhat similar... only you'll see people thinking a lot instead of typing a lot
groldan: there's the function expression problem (ie using plain geoapi no way to know up front how many arguments a function has, if I remember correctly)
jgarnett: (so even though the interfaces say "geoapi filter" if you pass in anything that is not AbstractFilter it will break.
aaime: So, do we start the meeting or what?
***groldan thinks it would be cool to have a plain geoapi implementation to switch to
jgarnett: please aaime
jgarnett: place filter on the agenda for later
aaime: 0) What's up
jgarnett has changed the topic to: Meet'in time: 0) what is up 1) DataStore.close() 2) FeatureCollection cleanup 3) iccubation 4) filter fun
aaime has changed the topic to: Meet'in time: 0) what is up 1) DataStore.close() 2) FeatureCollection cleanup 3) iccubation 4) filter aren't fun
aaime has changed the topic to: Meet'in time: 0) what is up 1) DataStore.close() 2) FeatureCollection cleanup 3) iccubation 4) filters aren't fun
jgarnett: finished uDig user interface review; and am now going to have to explain myself to acuster and jesse
***aaime coding like a crazy cat trying to put a couple of critical fixes and improvement before the last GeoServer beta goes out of the door
***jdeolive is looking at cleaning up feature collection
***Eclesia has a headack
acuster: trying to wrap my head around catalog and understand how to avoid doing resource management
iant_: Ian tried to move cacheing code to trunk post code sprint but failed
groldan: done some geoserver bug fixing, getting some more community schemas supported, and reading the wfs 1.1 spec to join justin
desruisseaux: martin: a little bit of postgrid (for a "GetLegend" on raster in GeoServer - to tied to postgrid for commiting on GeoServer right now...). Also more work on NetCDF reader and Basic Image I/O framework (making it more robust when the "valid range" information is not known).
aaime: Next topic?
aaime: 1) DataStore.close()
aaime: I hope to have addressed the last concerns in my mail of 5 minutes ago
aaime: (did I?)
aaime: so tomorrow I'll start making the changes in order to have the thing go out of the door along with GeoServer 1.6.0-beta4
jgarnett: andrea I am happy if you know about the concerns and have the answers in the javadocs.
jgarnett: (I voted +1)
aaime: Saw it
jgarnett: cool; thanks for putting this together andrea.
aaime: The concerns are appropriate
aaime: thougth not all API address them
aaime: for example, IOStream.close() does not say anything
aaime: Connection.close() only say you can call it many times
aaime: As for mt, I'll state that sync responsibility is on the user
jgarnett: can you explain?
aaime: because having it on the datastore would complicate tremendously matters
aaime: Explain which part?
jgarnett: can we at least make calling close() multiple times not deadly?
aaime: Ah yes, that's what I wrote in the mail
jgarnett: and I would like to make sure that close() can be called at any point in a DataStore lifecycle
aaime: after first time it should become a no-op
jgarnett: (ie while it is connecting for example).
jgarnett: reading email; please resume meeting
aaime: DataStore interface has no thread safety concerns attached to it afaik?
aaime: that is, it's not meant to be thread safe
groldan: btw, I'm +1 on calling it dispose() rather than close() (there's no open(), and after calling it the datastore should be thrown away)
***aaime is going to read the DataStore interface
aaime: Hem... I don't know
aaime: we should reopen the vote to everybody for that one...
jdeolive: that is what i have called it in the abstract datastore implementation i am working on in h2 land
aaime: I would be tempted to keep on calling close() just because I hate Eclipse oriented API :-p
aaime: but it's ok
jgarnett: I like dispose(); I am more worried about functionality being clear then the name.
aaime: The only thing that troubles me
jdeolive: how about www()?
aaime: is that IanT and Simone have already voted
aaime: rigth on the mark acuster
aaime: Oh well ok, I'll change the proposal over to dispose()
aaime: and let's see if IanT and Simone are going to ask for my head
aaime: Anything else?
jgarnett: move on
aaime: 3) iccubation
iant_: I don't care
jdeolive: did we miss 2?
jgarnett: um what about 2)
aaime: I thought I had tricked you...
jdeolive: 2) FeatureCollection Cleanup
jdeolive: this one is me
jdeolive: as we all know we have been talking about cleaning up the mockery we will feature collection for some time now
jdeolive: and i have been working on implementing 2 datastores ( wfs and h2 ), and indeed having feature collection eb this messy is a pain
jdeolive: also... as we have been doing the other feature model work now is the best time to fix it
jdeolive: so i would like to put some time toward working on teh proposal
groldan: still can't access the proposal page
jdeolive: so how do peopel feel about making it a target for 2.5? that is deprecating the old feature collection changes and make sure all the improvements are in place
groldan: It makes all sense to me
aaime: I think I would need an evaluation of the impact
iant_: sounds good to me - I never got my head round the old one
aaime: aka: how much effort it requires to do a clean, non deprecated port of the code from a user perspective?
jdeolive: aaime: i can going to try to take the smoothest update path possible approach
groldan: I don't think the impact's gonna be high (do you ever used it as a java.util.Collection after all?)
jdeolive: groldan: that is my impression as well, the only method that is really used is "iterator()"
aaime: every time you called iterator() or you used in a java5 loop, you did
groldan: (though I agree that doesn't count as an evaluation)
jdeolive: well i kind of think it does
jdeolive: i mean.. the amont client code has to change is an important thing
groldan: and we need a safer way to get count and bounds
jdeolive: anyways, all this is part of the proposal
jdeolive: which i will be working on
jdeolive: i just want to get some initial acceptance on the idea of fixing feature collection for 2.5
jgarnett: hrm; as far as I am concered we need to do this soon as the existing API is a hazzard to any and all users
groldan: aaime: yeah, thats obvious, just make it iterable or whatever it is called in java5 so
jgarnett: the Java 5 syntatic sugar makes it too easy to produce broken code.
groldan: but we all know all the rest of the collection methods are non sense
aaime: If it's not a blood bath from development point of view I'm ok
aaime: One thing thought... I would not be ok to do a full code sprint to fix this one and keep on leaving filters in the sorry state they are now
jgarnett: I already coded up many examples against the proposal above and found them okay; note this is basically a return to the FeatureResults concept — iie a Feature Collection with such a small API that we are willing to implement it property (tm)
jdeolive: ideed, we should make the filter thing a blocker for 2.5
jgarnett: any comments from me on that topic are saved for 5)
jdeolive: you mean 4)?
jgarnett: sorry agenda item 5-1=4)
jdeolive: ok... well i think that is it for me, i dont want to talk any more until we have a clear proposal with code examples
jgarnett: 3) iccubation
jgarnett: This one will start as me ... but really it is all of us PMC
jgarnett: if many of us are like iant_ and in a "Don't care" state
jgarnett: (and we can be honest)
jgarnett: we should just drop this for now;
jgarnett: and look into FSF or something else.
jgarnett: But the responsibility is ours; and we need to deal with it.
jgarnett: Last week I tried putting together a proposal based on some bad information
jgarnett: from a rather confused OSGeo board member.
iant_: Who said I was don't care?
jgarnett: I am going to attend their meeting on Nov 2nd and get the record straight.
acuster: what's the question?
jgarnett: (I saw it above; maybe the temporal IRC response paradox interspersed your commend onto a different topic?)
iant_: (I think that refered to close()/dispose())
acuster: what is it that you don't understand about incubbation?
jgarnett: sorry; set the record straight. If they are still confused about what we needt to the point we are getting conflicting instructions etc....
jgarnett: (not get the record straight)
acuster: ah, to see if they are confused
jgarnett: The other thing we could do is switch tatics; leave (c) with individuals / organizations
jgarnett: and license the result to OSGeo.
acuster: I thought we were in the home stretch.
jgarnett: It may be our only option since the "PMC" as an idea never managed to hold (c)
acuster: Cholmes decided kind of unilaterally that the lawyers we were using wern't going to work out
jgarnett: this would mean updating our headers; along with checking svn
jgarnett: would take longer.
acuster: and so has been sitting on the text for this last month
jgarnett: see I am out of the loop
jgarnett: is cholmes around?
jgarnett: perhaps I should just do a quick PMC poll:
jgarnett: aaime: do you know what is going on?
acuster: we almost succeeded in having a text for victoria
jgarnett: iant_ do you?
jgarnett: desruissseaux ?
desruisseaux: What is the question?
chorner: ... i thought this was a no-brainer
iant_: nope - I thought it was nearly done
chorner: we sign everything away
acuster: to monsieur gates, bellingham washington
chorner: is it just the text that is in dispute?
acuster: a man who loves to own code
aaime: Afaik the main problem is first finding out what would protect us the best
jgarnett: chorner the problem is who signs the code away
acuster: chorner, yes, as best as i can tell
acuster: jgarnett, ?
jgarnett: acuster so you think we are close to getting some text that OSGeo will agree too?
acuster: yes, very
jgarnett: okay; that was getting lost on me.
jgarnett: okay; will we have something for them to look at for Nov 2nd?
acuster: if we were grownups we would go to see a lawyer and have a text the next week
jdeolive: we have 5 mins left, shyodl we move onto 4?
jgarnett: not quite yet jdeolive
jgarnett: this iccubation thing is a do we finish or do we stop trying kind of thing for me.
acuster: jgarnett, no I do not have a final text draft for the board
jgarnett: (at the very least I don't want us to have to talk about it anymore)
acuster: because their lawyer doesn't understand diddly
acuster: so what I have is an annotated document, with my proposal text
jgarnett: And you say cholmes is getting a different lawyer ?
acuster: surrounded by explanations
jgarnett: okay; well we can always try forcing the issue; change our headers
acuster: and by the texts from other documents
jgarnett: sign that document and send it to OSGeo central.
jgarnett: basically if it is something that we the GeoTools project like
jgarnett: then we should do it.
acuster: The question is really: can OSGeo produce a copyright assignment form or not?
acuster: it's not a geotools question at all, fundamentally
jdeolive: i gotta run all, will have to catch up via logs
acuster: ciao justin
jgarnett: Well regardless of if the OSGeo can do it or not
jgarnett: we need to see it get done.
jgarnett: Should I kill the existing proposal page then acuster?
acuster: we could unilaterally give them copyright
acuster: but we would have no guarantees at all for what that assignment meant
jgarnett: Well we have some difficulty; dzwiers does not want to give (c)
acuster: jgarnett, I don't know of what page you speak
jgarnett: and we have the difficulty of code for which the author cannot be found.
acuster: fine, some code stays licensed lgpl
acuster: that's not a problem
acuster: if osgeo gets the bulk of it
acuster: and we have a reasonable list of what code is licensed and what code is assigned
jgarnett: okay I need to open up the floor to the rest of the PMC here
jgarnett: (because I, like others, have little time on this one)
acuster: we could undertake the provenance review before signing the docs
desruisseaux: Adrian said that he is close to getting the paper accepted by OSGEO. Can we make this try? Do we have someone who can tell us when OSGEO accept it (if they do)?
jgarnett: Paul is now on the board; I can ask him to tell me when they accept it.
acuster: cholmes was supposed to be point man on this
jgarnett: My impression is the board thinks we the GeoTools PMC are insane
acuster: I sent him the text and he was supposed to take it from there
jgarnett: okay cholmes is sometimes known to be busy
jgarnett: do we have a back up plan?
acuster: if they think we are simply ask them for a copyright assignment form, any form
desruisseaux: Then can we send an email to Chris and ask him if he have any new, or if he wish to pass to someone else?
acuster: the only one I have seen is terrible
acuster: legally incorrect and such
acuster: writen by american lawyers trying to encompass european law and getting it flat out wrong
jgarnett: I see
jgarnett: GeoServer recently did something; that was more or less sane.
acuster: so if OSGeo wants to allow projects to recieve copyright, let them tell us how they propose we do it
jgarnett: Sane to the point I was willing to sign it after careful review.
jgarnett: OSGeo does not really want to put in the work on this one
jgarnett: there is no way they are going to tell us what to do
acuster: great, if anyone has an alternative, great
jgarnett: (ie they are not a grown up foundation like FSF
jgarnett: they want to learn from our example)
jgarnett: okay; how about this
acuster: right so we did all the work we possibly could do for them
acuster: if they don't want to do anything, then we are stuck
jgarnett: I will talk to the board on Nov 2nd
jgarnett: we can try your docs
acuster: we could easily assign all the (c) to the FSF europe
jgarnett: and then I think we should look into back up plans; ask TOPP for help (as a foundation) or FSF
iant_: Can we try reminding them that I "donated" $500 from google soc mentoring that could be used for lawyers i fneed be
jgarnett: that would be good as well.
acuster: we could do that today
jgarnett: well if we like that idea let me present it as an alternative to them on Nov 2nd
acuster: the (c) would be FSFeu and the project would be "OSGeo"
jgarnett: So the decision comes down to:
jgarnett: a) look at this code contribution agreement from acuster; like it lump it or fix it
jgarnett: b) (c) FSFeu and organization would be OSGeo
jgarnett: that works for me...
desruisseaux: Fine for me too (My first preference would be (c) OSGEO. My second preference would be (C) FSF hosted on OSGEO as proposed by Adrian).
acuster: more precisely (c) mix of FSFeu and individuals
jgarnett: you are correct
jgarnett: iant_ any feedback?
acuster: but if the majority was with FSF they would have standing to sue/protect/...
desruisseaux: Adrian, do you think that (c) FSF is preferable to (c) OSGEO?
iant_: How would choosing an EU licence work for the US?
acuster: desruisseaux, no
acuster: iant_, the license is lgpl
acuster: the group holding the copyright is in europe
acuster: I don't get your question beyond that
iant_: which we already have, right? so how would choosing an EU group to hold the copyright work in the US
acuster: iant_, sorry I don't undestand you
acuster: today (c) is held by all of you
acuster: despite what the headers say
iant_: will US Orgs recognise and honour an EU copywrite?
groldan left the room (quit: Remote closed the connection).
iant_: and visa versa if we go with OSGEO
acuster: yes, copyright is become standardized (except for some details like the total length of the exclusion right)
acuster: copyright lawsuits are filed all over the world against everyone
aaime: Aren't USA companies much more sue prone than european one? (or is it just a myth)?
iant_: That's what I thought. - What about those of us whoes employers claim ownership of all our IP?
acuster: the foundation holding the copyright will probably not affect the occurance of a lawsuit
acuster: except perhaps FSF is slightly more of a deterrent
jgarnett: iant_ I think such organizations get to sign something
acuster: since they are better known as legally competent
jgarnett: Refractions signed something for us to work on GeoServer.
acuster: iant_ indeed, those are exactly the kinds of questions we need to tackle in a document
acuster: which is why it is hard
iant_: So would it be a problem that James and I never worried about this back when we worked for Leeds Uni
acuster: and why their proposal a year and a half back was a bad joke
acuster: iant_, it's too bad but I don't think it's a problem
acuster: if your code back then belongs to Leeds
acuster: then they have a joint (c) on the code base
iant_: well Leeds and the grant funding body
jgarnett: The (c) Leeds still shows up in the headers IanT
acuster: iant_, did they give you permission to use the lgpl?
acuster: iant_, do you know if you needed to ask them for permission?
iant_: but for sure James and I were never allowed to own the copyright on work product during that period. That's why we gave GT away in the first place
acuster: the best we can do is document what code from that period remains
acuster: and add (c) Leeds/grant funders to the files
iant_: We never really asked, but no one is likly to chase it down
acuster: at the cost of maybe one day having to rip those files out
acuster: we should in any case document the files as best as we possibly can
acuster: to close this topic. I'm going to work on an update of the situation in the next few days.
acuster: I encourage everyone to read it
acuster: and the PMC can then take decisions from there.
aaime: I have to run
jgarnett: thanks aaime
aaime: Will anyone post the logs?
jgarnett: I will post the logs now
acuster: aaime, was your filters topic serious?
jgarnett: thanks for the meeting and sorry we did not get to filter
Eclesia left the room (quit: Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)).
aaime: it was serious 4 months ago
aaime: now it's becoming a joke
jgarnett: aaime can we write up a proposal for filter ? ie so discussion can be structured next time?
Eclesia n=Administ@ACaen-157-1-52-70.w83-115.abo.wanadoo.fr entered the room.
acuster: as a topic for today (something you wanted to talk about)
acuster: not as a subject
aaime: Proposal? We need a sprint, not a proposal imho
aaime: It's not like we have to make a new API
jgarnett: fiar enough
jgarnett: it is about work
jgarnett: not about API