Blog from May, 2009

Breakout IRC Meeting

1) cleanup feedback
2) geoapi relationship
3) referencing
4) GeoTools site/blog
5) geotoolkit response

Action items:

(5:10:35 AM) aaime: rise and shine jgarnett (smile)
(5:10:43 AM) jgarnett: morning
(5:10:48 AM) jgarnett: a bit too early of a morning
(5:11:03 AM) aaime: damn timezones
(5:11:23 AM) aaime: can't you just live during the night and sleep during the day? (smile)
(5:11:28 AM) jgarnett: yeah daylight savings kicked in a while back so this is at least an hour earlier then expected
(5:11:38 AM) jgarnett: nope the point of moving to a sunny location is to see the sun!
(5:11:51 AM) aaime: aah, ok ok
(5:12:07 AM) aaime: jdeolive should be back, he's gone grab some food
(5:12:29 AM) jgarnett: okay cool
(5:12:52 AM) jgarnett: you will need to keep me from pestering him about jdbc-ng stuff; which is much more fun
(5:13:04 AM) jgarnett: I am going to do svn up and then get to work
(5:13:14 AM) jgarnett: I assume we are only clearning up trunk here?
(5:13:21 AM) aaime: yeah
(5:13:28 AM) aaime: that's what I was thiking to do anyways
(5:13:38 AM) aaime: 2.6.0 should see the light in 1-2 months anyways
(5:13:56 AM) aaime: (or else gs will have to cut it early and depend on some beta version of it)
(5:14:03 AM) jgarnett has changed the topic to: IRC Chat / GeoTools Future / Module Cleanup
(5:14:22 AM) jgarnett: I was thinking we should go with the Java numbering scheme
(5:14:37 AM) jgarnett: call it GeoTools 6 to respect both reality and the age of the project (smile)
(5:15:01 AM) aaime: lol
(5:15:26 AM) jgarnett: hey it is a good idea - you laugh at me :-P I am going to put coffee on
(5:16:27 AM) jgarnett: I am going to poke IanT who I think I see online
(5:16:46 AM) aaime: he is
(5:17:04 AM) ianturton: I'm back
(5:17:20 AM) jgarnett: ah ha!
(5:17:23 AM) jgarnett: good morning
(5:17:44 AM) ianturton: stupid notifier is quiter than the music
(5:18:13 AM) aaime: yeah, mibbit notifications are not good
(5:18:19 AM) jgarnett: stupid question
(5:18:21 AM) aaime: oh well, it seems jdeolive is not showing up
(5:18:29 AM) jgarnett: plugin\wms should really be extension\wms
(5:18:42 AM) jgarnett: except that we are starting to have "multiple" implementations of this sort of thing
(5:18:44 AM) jgarnett: wms-c
(5:19:00 AM) jgarnett: and there is a SOC student on the hook to do the other tile servers this summer.
(5:19:01 AM) ianturton: why are we having multiples?
(5:19:15 AM) aaime: well, as long as they don't share a plugin base stored in library, they are not plugins anyways
(5:19:22 AM) jgarnett: To capture all that stuff we would need a plugin mechanism.
(5:19:39 AM) aaime: but until we don't have it, it's not a plugin
(5:19:39 AM) jgarnett: indeed
(5:19:42 AM) aaime: let's think today
(5:19:47 AM) ianturton: OK
(5:19:49 AM) aaime: there's always time to move that back
(5:19:57 AM) aaime: if a plugin mechanism shows up
(5:20:00 AM) jgarnett: I will continue the move to extensions then
(5:20:08 AM) aaime: sounds good to me
(5:20:30 AM) jgarnett: but it may be wise to think up a plugin system; so we can capture some of these code contributions for the geotools library
(5:20:43 AM) aaime: jgarnett, I'll consider it when it's there (smile)
(5:21:02 AM) aaime: we have our hands full with today stuff without having to call for future/maybe stuff
(5:21:18 AM) jgarnett: some of this will fall to disucssions with you Andrea - with respect to MapContext and MapLayer. I thought I was going to have a free hand there but now both you and michael are active.
(5:21:45 AM) aaime: jgarnett, off topci
(5:21:58 AM) jgarnett: heh; repressed
(5:22:00 AM) aaime: please let's focus on today's issues
(5:22:11 AM) aaime: otherwise we won't get anything done
(5:22:37 AM) aaime: so, let's gather some topics?
(5:23:18 AM) jgarnett: sure; I was not sure if this was a meeting or a work party.
(5:23:30 AM) aaime has changed the topic to: IRC Chat / GeoTools Future / Module Cleanup: 1) cleanup feedback 2) geoapi relationship
(5:23:40 AM) aaime has changed the topic to: IRC Chat / GeoTools Future / Module Cleanup: 1) cleanup feedback 2) geoapi relationship 3) GeoTools site/blog
(5:24:05 AM) aaime: anything else?
(5:24:53 AM) ianturton: looks good to me
(5:25:12 AM) jgarnett: we have a couple other orders of biz; but perhaps they can be saved for email
(5:25:29 AM) aaime: what are they?
(5:25:40 AM) aaime: (can we talk about them here?)
(5:25:47 AM) jgarnett: we have to get a news post up with respect to new PMC members; and I see Cedric has accepted my nomination
(5:25:55 AM) aaime: Cedric?
(5:26:07 AM) jgarnett: wrong one (sad)
(5:26:12 AM) jgarnett: sleepy
(5:26:24 AM) aaime: ah, Christian
(5:26:25 AM) aaime: yeah
(5:26:45 AM) jgarnett: I almost lost his response in my email bucket
(5:27:00 AM) aaime: I don't keep mail folders threaded for that very reason
(5:27:09 AM) aaime: every now and then people answer an old thread
(5:27:26 AM) aaime: and I did loose the mail totally by keeping the folders threaded
(5:28:08 AM) aaime: voted for him
(5:28:17 AM) ianturton: Fortunately Gmail moves the tread up to the top when there's a repley
(5:28:26 AM) aaime: ah, nice one
(5:28:33 AM) aaime: thunderbird does not seem to be as smart
(5:29:10 AM) aaime: let's get started?
(5:29:13 AM) jgarnett: I have a filter set for thunderbird called "less stuff" that I have set to handle such things.
(5:29:16 AM) jgarnett: yep
(5:29:34 AM) aaime: 1) Cleanup feedback
(5:29:50 AM) aaime: Anyone has anything important/urgent about the module cleanup mails that was not addressed by mail?
(5:29:56 AM) ianturton: every thing looked good to me
(5:30:06 AM) eclesia entered the room.
(5:30:20 AM) eclesia left the room.
(5:30:24 AM) aaime: at the end of the cleanup
(5:30:29 AM) aaime: everything should have a maintainer
(5:30:42 AM) aaime: I'm just a little worried about the mif/geomedia/gpx stuff
(5:30:51 AM) aaime: CampToCamp is using those modules
(5:31:01 AM) aaime: and they told me that they are thinking about stepping up as maintainers
(5:31:09 AM) aaime: but I had no confirmation
(5:31:17 AM) aaime: so I was thinking to keep those modules on hold
(5:31:26 AM) aaime: worst case, we can delete them next week no? (wink)
(5:31:44 AM) aaime: Also it seems the javacc-jjtree plugin is hard to kill
(5:31:50 AM) aaime: because of the way the parsers weer setup
(5:31:55 AM) ianturton: I don't think mif ever worked (unless someone finished it for me)
(5:31:59 AM) jgarnett: that sounds fine; I was also worried; as I have had reports of those modules saving peoples but in the past
(5:32:07 AM) aaime: (not in a standard way, and our custom plugin takes care of the weirdness of that)
(5:32:36 AM) aaime: ianturton, yeah, mif was taken over by an italian guy some time ago
(5:32:37 AM) jgarnett: I got a bit lost on that the jjtree plugin; I thought CQL used antlr or something?
(5:33:01 AM) aaime: and spatial data integrator from CampToCamp uses mif datastore successfully
(5:33:11 AM) aaime: jgarnett, nope, antlr is used by mbedward separate project
(5:33:15 AM) ianturton: cool - I don't have a MapInfo license any more
(5:33:46 AM) aaime has changed the topic to: IRC Chat / GeoTools Future / Module Cleanup: 1) cleanup feedback 2) geoapi relationship 3) GeoTools site/blog 4) geotoolkit response
(5:33:54 AM) aaime: jgarnett, anything else?
(5:34:12 AM) aaime: anyways, I'll write a last warning mail before removing the modules
(5:34:21 AM) jgarnett: a couple stupid questions I guess
(5:34:44 AM) aaime: shoot
(5:34:47 AM) jgarnett: can we issue a milestone release when this is done; and can we run mvn site and check that the various developer roles come out correct
(5:34:55 AM) jgarnett: (and we should publish javadocs again)
(5:34:59 AM) aaime: mvn site does not work
(5:35:10 AM) aaime: I tried out, it starts spinning on itself
(5:35:13 AM) aaime: building over and over the same moduels
(5:35:29 AM) aaime: I have no idea why
(5:35:33 AM) jgarnett: can we seperatly version the maven build tools
(5:35:49 AM) jgarnett: (which also prevent us building from a clean checkout when tagged)
(5:36:01 AM) aaime: I agree on that, but wouldn't that require a restructure of the svn
(5:36:08 AM) aaime: so that we give those a separate trunk or something?
(5:36:38 AM) aaime: or you say, we just keep them there and version them separately, working only on the current trunk
(5:36:46 AM) aaime: deploying them each time they are changed?
(5:37:17 AM) jgarnett: yep
(5:37:23 AM) aaime: that could work
(5:37:25 AM) jgarnett: just do not list them as children in the modules section
(5:37:27 AM) jgarnett: yep
(5:37:36 AM) aaime: but can we keep it as a separate step
(5:37:38 AM) jgarnett: we would need to change the developers guide a smidge
(5:37:40 AM) jgarnett: yep
(5:37:42 AM) aaime: after the cleanup is done?
(5:37:53 AM) jgarnett: I was figuring this was part of the clean up
(5:38:00 AM) jgarnett: but perhaps mvn site / javadocs is too much?
(5:38:08 AM) aaime: it is
(5:38:10 AM) jgarnett: (it was going to be my acceptence test to check if the work was done)
(5:38:16 AM) aaime: if you keep on expanding the scope
(5:38:19 AM) jgarnett: okay moving on ...
(5:38:20 AM) aaime: I will give up
(5:38:28 AM) aaime: because it's no more something I can do during the weekend
(5:38:38 AM) aaime: if I don't get chunks of stuff that I can start and end in a weekend
(5:38:45 AM) aaime: I won't be able to do it
(5:39:05 AM) aaime: I'm not saying not to do things
(5:39:17 AM) aaime: I'm saying to partition them into self contained, small steps
(5:39:35 AM) aaime: alternatively, let's find out someone that can spend a week doing this
(5:39:47 AM) jgarnett: understood; agreed; moving on?
(5:39:52 AM) aaime: yep
(5:39:59 AM) aaime: 2) geoapi relationship
(5:40:13 AM) jgarnett: This one is tough for me personally
(5:40:42 AM) aaime: in the end, to me it's simple
(5:40:44 AM) ianturton: me too
(5:40:56 AM) jgarnett: a) I find the geoapi project very worthwhile professionally - it has brought me a lot of great contacts; and has severed as a good venue for discussion and collaboration with the OGC
(5:40:57 AM) aaime: do we have the resources to be involved and discuss for days and days
(5:41:01 AM) aaime: the details of some iso spec?
(5:41:05 AM) ianturton: I feel we should support geoapi but if no o ne else is why bother
(5:41:41 AM) jgarnett: b) I find it a complete failure for its origional goal. James gave up in disgust considering it hijacked by the OGC; and then by Polexis and now I am concerned it is becoming a geomatys pony
(5:41:42 AM) aaime: geomatys people are going to push more and more changes into it
(5:42:02 AM) aaime: it is
(5:42:15 AM) ianturton: but unless Deegree or OpenJump start to use it we gain nothing
(5:42:28 AM) aaime: only someone that has plenty of time to discuss the nitty gritty details of all the ISO specs they are trying to implements
(5:42:32 AM) jgarnett: that was its origional purpose; but as I said that has been a failure.
(5:42:34 AM) aaime: can keep up with geoapi imho
(5:43:02 AM) aaime: I don't even have copies of the specs, nor time to read them
(5:43:16 AM) aaime: so, at least for me, it's impossible to participate in any meaningful way
(5:43:28 AM) ianturton: I have the same problem
(5:43:31 AM) jgarnett: well I certraintly cannot keep up with it on my own; I have talked privately with Martin with repspect to moving it to a milestone release cycle; but belive me I cannot find any easy answers.
(5:43:46 AM) aaime: I saw
(5:43:50 AM) aaime: I'm still subscribed to that ml
(5:43:52 AM) jgarnett: I find people pay me to keep up.
(5:44:34 AM) jgarnett: I also find it a nice quck way to pay attention to the specs; a few developers going over them and producing interfaces. But I have worked on geoapi a lot can can do this quickly.
(5:44:57 AM) aaime: so, it seems we don't have the resources to be involved, and we don't get any significant advantage out of that, no?
(5:45:38 AM) jgarnett: I do not want to be in the position of the only "outside" contributor; I was surprised just now to see a bunch of patches showing up for an upcomming OGC meeting. So I do not feel that involved; much like with geotools I feel like decisions are being made behind closed doors ... and that does not feel good.
(5:45:53 AM) jdeolive n=jdeolive@ entered the room.
(5:45:54 AM) aaime: the same amount of effort could be spent doing code, doing blogs, integrating with other osgeo work
(5:46:41 AM) aaime: jdeolive, log of the discussion so far:
(5:47:15 AM) aaime: in the end I don't think it's a good idea to be spread that thin
(5:47:20 AM) jgarnett: I recognize this andrea; I feel we should talk the other PMC members; in particular I expect Ben's organization to freak out on this one
(5:47:44 AM) aaime: well, we don't have the resources to keep on fighting on that front
(5:47:49 AM) jgarnett: but for me personally I would be in +0 to dropping geoapi; and +1 to dropping geoapi-pending.
(5:48:15 AM) aaime: so if they freak out, they should provide the necessary resources to keep up the work
(5:48:20 AM) jgarnett: Indeed I would want to inform this decision based on our handling of the referencing module (the current scope of the geoapi jar)
(5:48:24 AM) ianturton: jgarnett - that sounds like a plan to me
(5:48:26 AM) aaime: I cannot just find time out of thin air
(5:48:46 AM) aaime has changed the topic to: IRC Chat / GeoTools Future / Module Cleanup: 1) cleanup feedback 2) geoapi relationship 2.5) referencing 3) GeoTools site/blog 4) geotoolkit response
(5:48:49 AM) ianturton: I'm going to the next OGC meeting so I can try to find out what's going on there
(5:49:03 AM) jgarnett: what time frame is that Ian?
(5:50:07 AM) jgarnett: andrea would you be okay with dropping geoapi-pending; and depending on a snapshot of the geoapi jar? So you are not forced to keep up...
(5:50:22 AM) ianturton: June somethime (endish)
(5:50:32 AM) aaime: for the short term
(5:50:43 AM) aaime: I would like to freeze the geoapi we depend on
(5:50:44 AM) jgarnett: how about until hune sometime (endish)
(5:50:49 AM) aaime: and stop changing it
(5:50:55 AM) aaime: for the next versoin of gt2 (2.7?)
(5:51:05 AM) jgarnett: (or 7)
(5:51:08 AM) aaime: I'm ok with dropping parts of geoapi and we can discuss what to do about referencing
(5:51:13 AM) ianturton: that would make sense
(5:51:21 AM) ianturton: - freezing that is
(5:51:38 AM) aaime: ianturton, yeah, that works as long as we need 0 changes on the interfaces
(5:51:55 AM) aaime: unfortunately we made the bad call of using geoapi interfaces everywhere in the code
(5:52:03 AM) ianturton: true
(5:52:04 AM) jgarnett: andrea while I feel this is a sensible response; I do not want to pressure you into anything; if Ben and the other PMC members come back and say to kill it I will not be in the way (see +0 comment above)
(5:52:05 AM) aaime: instead of using gt2 ones that did extend the geoapi ones
(5:52:39 AM) aaime: shall we move to the next one, referencing?
(5:52:56 AM) aaime: (and then come back to this one?)
(5:52:59 AM) jgarnett: let me formally propose so we can vote and move forward.
(5:53:12 AM) aaime: ok
(5:53:52 AM) jgarnett: I propose we drop geoapi-pending and depend on a milestone release of the geoapi jar until Ian reports back from the next OGC meeting.
(5:54:01 AM) jgarnett: +1
(5:54:06 AM) ianturton: +1
(5:54:07 AM) aaime: wait a second, I'm missing soething
(5:54:14 AM) aaime: how do we drop geoapi-pending?
(5:54:32 AM) aaime: by freezing the dependency on it?
(5:54:53 AM) aaime: and we keep on depending on geoapi-core snapshots?
(5:55:03 AM) aaime: Like, we're nearing a release for 2.6
(5:55:09 AM) jgarnett: fair nuff: I was thinking of depending on a milestone release; and then either folding it into geoapi (a license issue) or doing a bzr shadow copy.
(5:55:12 AM) aaime: so we should not do big api changes now no?
(5:55:31 AM) aaime: folding it into geoapi...
(5:55:41 AM) jgarnett: no the geotools api module
(5:55:47 AM) aaime: ah ok
(5:55:55 AM) aaime: so the plan really is
(5:55:58 AM) jgarnett: the geotools api module is designed to hold classes that are not ready for geoapi yet
(5:56:10 AM) jgarnett: so for me that is the same thing as geoapi pending
(5:56:30 AM) aaime: keep on depending on geoapi-core snapshots and depend on a milestone of geoapi-pending
(5:56:45 AM) aaime: mind thought, within 1 or 2 month we'll need something for 2.6.0
(5:56:58 AM) aaime: something that can be called a release, even if we are the ones labelling it
(5:57:35 AM) aaime: jgarnett?
(5:57:47 AM) jgarnett: I am catching up
(5:58:33 AM) jgarnett: so we all think the approach is "sane"; we just need to sort out the details for geoapi-pending; can we make use of a milestone release now; and come back to this another meeting.
(5:58:59 AM) aaime: imho we better start depending on a geoapi-core non snapshot as well
(5:59:05 AM) jgarnett: I intend to have us depend on geoapi milestone releases not snapshots for both geoapi and geoapi-pending
(5:59:15 AM) aaime: but we can go back to that when 2.6.0 is nearing completion
(5:59:18 AM) jgarnett: to be blunt
(5:59:40 AM) jgarnett: I want to draw a line in the sand (ie a milestone release) and then hear back from Ian towards the end of June.
(5:59:54 AM) aaime: that's totally fine by me
(6:00:03 AM) jgarnett: I think that is sufficient to allow us to proceed is it not?
(6:00:07 AM) aaime: let's package the geoapi of today as the one we depend on
(6:00:25 AM) aaime: and let's hear from ianturton in June
(6:00:38 AM) jgarnett: it is -r 1396 for reference
(6:00:41 AM) jgarnett: I will try tagging it now
(6:00:43 AM) aaime: jgarnett, would that work for you?
(6:01:09 AM) aaime: Ok, so the plan is package up geoapi as it is today, and depend on that solid
(6:01:27 AM) aaime: until we hear anything that may make us think otherwise
(6:01:30 AM) aaime: ok?
(6:01:30 AM) jgarnett: look it would work for me; and it is a responsible course of action; I just am generally a grumpy old man finding it hard to admit geoapi has failed in the goals I set for it
(6:01:46 AM) aaime: ok, +1 for me
(6:01:57 AM) ianturton: +1
(6:02:03 AM) jgarnett: we will need votes to come in from other PMC members out of band
(6:02:10 AM) jgarnett: next...
(6:02:17 AM) aaime: 2.5) referencing
(6:02:35 AM) aaime: I have some ideas here
(6:02:42 AM) aaime: one for the short term, one for the mid term
(6:02:51 AM) aaime: for the short term (2.6 timeframe)
(6:02:59 AM) aaime: we simply do nothing, keep the referencing modules as they are
(6:03:19 AM) aaime: it's not like there is anyone in a screaming need of major changes no?=
(6:03:50 AM) aaime: Opinions for this short term (lack of action) plan?
(6:04:04 AM) ianturton: sounds good to me
(6:04:14 AM) jgarnett: thinking
(6:04:50 AM) jgarnett: no that is fine; I will hear the mid term plan first...
(6:05:16 AM) aaime: mid term plan, for the 2.7 series
(6:05:39 AM) aaime: would be to find a way to get all the improvements that went into the geotoolkit referencing modules
(6:05:51 AM) aaime: without giving them a way to strangle us
(6:06:11 AM) aaime: which would be, to use mercurial to get our own copy
(6:06:12 AM) ianturton: how much of a change was there?
(6:06:16 AM) aaime: massive
(6:06:21 AM) aaime: you would not recognize the code anymore
(6:06:34 AM) ianturton: OK - is this a wait to move to java 6 thing?
(6:06:48 AM) aaime: no, I would port back their code to java 5
(6:07:11 AM) aaime: the thing is, I recognize there are improvemetns there
(6:07:19 AM) aaime: but I don't want them to set our pace
(6:07:30 AM) aaime: just like they did with Jody's patches
(6:07:42 AM) ianturton: well we could pull an update at any time we liked then
(6:07:44 AM) aaime: (1.5 year and no review, then total rewrite of it on geotoolkit)
(6:07:49 AM) aaime: that's the idea
(6:07:57 AM) aaime: clone, revert back to java 5
(6:08:12 AM) aaime: be free to use our copy of geoapi
(6:08:12 AM) jgarnett: yep
(6:08:14 AM) aaime: or our interfaces
(6:08:32 AM) aaime: be free to make our own changes without having to wait months
(6:08:46 AM) jgarnett: here is the thing; for planning. how much of an effort is that; do we need to get you a couple weeks free? what does it need to make it happen
(6:08:55 AM) aaime: and discuss for days on what is standard for them and what is reasonable for us
(6:09:12 AM) jgarnett: martin did talk to me about assisting; but I think it was a short term offer; and I have enough to handle right now.
(6:09:16 AM) aaime: right, I don't exactly know about that
(6:09:32 AM) aaime: simboss seemed to be interested in working on that
(6:09:39 AM) aaime: but sure resourcing is a problem
(6:09:59 AM) aaime: as opengeo is moving more and more to build on top of GeoServer instead of workin on the GeoTools foundations
(6:10:07 AM) ianturton: I keep meaning to get my head round refferencing - this might be my chance (smile)
(6:10:16 AM) jgarnett: so I think it is a fine mid term plan; or even short term plan if the amount of effort is low. the trick is figuring the amount of effort.
(6:10:29 AM) aaime: the code in geotoolkit seems less nightmarish than the one in gt2
(6:12:17 AM) aaime: so yeah, the idea of depending on a clone of geotoolkit works if we have resources
(6:12:31 AM) aaime: that needs to be compared with the eventual effort needed to keep the gt2 code alive
(6:12:51 AM) aaime: for very very minor maintenance I can keep up
(6:12:59 AM) aaime: I'm not worried about the math
(6:13:03 AM) aaime: but the class design is a maze
(6:13:18 AM) aaime: very deep inheritance hierarchies
(6:13:26 AM) aaime: silly tricks with SPI
(6:13:27 AM) ianturton: that's why I keep backing out of learning it
(6:13:36 AM) jgarnett: okay so as the PMC our best assistence would be to try and scare up resources in the time or money sense.
(6:13:48 AM) aaime: yep
(6:13:55 AM) jgarnett: aaime I do know the code; and have a plan to remove the silly tricks with SPI
(6:14:06 AM) jgarnett: but they have always fallen on deft ears
(6:14:30 AM) jgarnett: place that under "long term" plan
(6:14:35 AM) aaime: right, I remeber when everybody but Martin wanted to get rid of SPI and use some more modern container
(6:14:51 AM) aaime: (that was end of 2006)
(6:15:35 AM) aaime: (and who remembers the logging wars, where everybody but Martin wanted to use something other than java logging?)
(6:15:55 AM) aaime: but yeah, I agree that is more long term plan
(6:15:59 AM) jgarnett: stay on topic (smile)
(6:16:05 AM) aaime: roger
(6:16:19 AM) aaime: so it seems we have a sensible plan, we only need to scare out resources
(6:16:27 AM) aaime: let's move forward?
(6:16:31 AM) ianturton: +1
(6:16:36 AM) jgarnett: aaime; can we get a better scope on the work; that would help scare out resources.
(6:17:02 AM) jgarnett: 3) geotools site/blog
(6:17:42 AM) vheurteaux entered the room.
(6:17:43 AM) aaime: So here the idea would be to refresh the gt2 site and have a blog people do read
(6:18:02 AM) aaime: which seems a great one, but without any backing in terms of resourcing?
(6:18:09 AM) jgarnett: we could accomplish this by not posting IRC chats to our news feed; and submitting it to
(6:18:14 AM) jgarnett: or setting up a blogger channel.
(6:18:49 AM) ianturton: that might work - announce on SlashGeo too
(6:19:04 AM) jgarnett: I think we can make improvements on the blogging side; I am keen to see a website developed and am on the osgeo marketting committe with this goal in mind (specically a geotools website with osgeo branding etc...)
(6:19:17 AM) jgarnett: however the marketting committee is kind of stalled out; making logos and so on ....
(6:19:48 AM) ianturton: I don't manage to keep my own blog going but I could write to a GT one sometimes
(6:19:56 AM) jgarnett: I think I would recommend blogger; why? because the confluence RRS feed is stupid
(6:20:00 AM) jgarnett: when wiki links update old posts.
(6:20:32 AM) aaime: is blogger the bloggin site manged by google?
(6:20:51 AM) ianturton: I think so
(6:21:08 AM) aaime: I would be ok with anything that is really dead easy
(6:21:23 AM) ianturton: Blogger is easy
(6:22:02 AM) aaime: what would the blog entries contain?
(6:22:09 AM) aaime: news about new features of geotools
(6:22:11 AM) aaime: releases
(6:22:14 AM) jgarnett: we use it for udig here:
(6:22:25 AM) aaime: did not even know it existed
(6:22:40 AM) ianturton: I could tell people about the book chapter on GT I wrote
(6:22:49 AM) aaime: indeed
(6:23:00 AM) aaime: jgarnet, that's on a different site thought
(6:23:05 AM) aaime: blogspot instead of blogger?
(6:23:30 AM) ianturton: same site
(6:23:34 AM) aaime: I see
(6:23:45 AM) jgarnett: okay back on track
(6:23:56 AM) aaime: so yeah, I would be ok with that
(6:23:59 AM) aaime: what about the wiki?
(6:24:00 AM) jgarnett: even a four page "site" that links of to the wiki would be fine
(6:24:09 AM) jgarnett: it has worked well for udig (the balance)
(6:24:21 AM) aaime: would the blog become
(6:24:24 AM) jgarnett: and what is up on codehaus/sourceforge etc right now is pretty scary.
(6:24:33 AM) aaime: with direct pointers to the wiki?
(6:24:35 AM) jgarnett: ah you miss understand me ...
(6:24:46 AM) jgarnett: compare:
(6:24:46 AM) jgarnett: -
(6:24:46 AM) aaime: so ok, it would be separate
(6:24:55 AM) jgarnett: -
(6:24:58 AM) jgarnett: they are two seperate things
(6:25:03 AM) aaime: yeah, ok, family feeling
(6:25:12 AM) aaime: but how do we deal with the site/wiki then?
(6:25:29 AM) aaime: in order to better customize it we'd need to move it away from codehaus no?
(6:25:46 AM) aaime: (that's what we did for, besides a lot of issues with the site being unreachable)
(6:26:04 AM) ianturton: we should probably move to
(6:26:11 AM) jgarnett: we could move the wiki to osgeo hardware
(6:26:22 AM) aaime: but they don't support confluence
(6:26:33 AM) jgarnett: for an example of the new osgeo branding:
(6:26:38 AM) aaime: how expensive would be the migration? It would seem it would take a lot of days?
(6:26:51 AM) jgarnett: aaime it would be us who would install and support confluence
(6:27:09 AM) aaime: look, confluence is a nightmare
(6:27:14 AM) aaime: it eats a lot of resources
(6:27:22 AM) ianturton: very nice branding - if only I had a booklet
(6:27:24 AM) aaime: you sure they would allow us to install it?
(6:27:39 AM) ianturton: I think it
(6:27:43 AM) aaime: with we had to give it a dedicated instance
(6:27:45 AM) ianturton: 's been talked about
(6:27:46 AM) jgarnett: then we can leave the wiki where it is; and seperate the site from it?
(6:27:54 AM) aaime: and remove qiute a bit of plugins to avoid it going OOM every 2 days
(6:28:56 AM) jgarnett: ianturton: you are correct I do have a geotools booklet - for a tutorial for foss4g - the important part is they are starting to have more then logos so we can start to build a site around the material.
(6:28:56 AM) aaime: and keep just the guides over there? may work, not super nice, but may work
(6:29:36 AM) aaime: I'm worried about maintenance
(6:29:37 AM) ianturton: actually I may turn parts of my web mapping course into a book/let
(6:29:46 AM) aaime: I guess we'd have to at least move to osgeo all release pages
(6:30:10 AM) jgarnett: hrm lots of ideas here
(6:30:33 AM) aaime: jgarnett, usual issue: resourcing (or, lack of it)
(6:30:34 AM) jgarnett: andrea as a wikie; confluence is not working due to codehaus anit-vandlism steps.
(6:30:37 AM) jgarnett: yep
(6:30:50 AM) jgarnett: we can take steps to cut down on the amount of work
(6:31:06 AM) aaime: jgarnett, my radical opiniong would be move the main site to osgeo
(6:31:14 AM) aaime: and turn the dev guide and user guide into sphinx format
(6:31:27 AM) jgarnett: we can drop the wiki release pages; and use the sourceforge etc...
(6:31:32 AM) aaime: (there is a converter from xhtml to restructuredText afaik)
(6:31:50 AM) jgarnett: in anycase i would find this less important then
(6:31:57 AM) jgarnett: getting an initial site together
(6:32:08 AM) jgarnett: and that less important then getting blog posts picked up
(6:32:24 AM) aaime: ok for initial site back pionting to the old wiki
(6:32:29 AM) aaime: and blog
(6:32:31 AM) aaime: you do it?
(6:32:32 AM) jgarnett: yep
(6:32:44 AM) jgarnett: not sure when I can get to this
(6:33:01 AM) aaime: (I can stretch to the impossible and do some blog posts... note how many I made on the blog (wink) )
(6:33:04 AM) jgarnett: it would at least kick the osgeo marketting email list along
(6:33:28 AM) jgarnett: aaime you already send "newsy" email to the devel list
(6:33:34 AM) jgarnett: sending those to the blog would be fine
(6:34:11 AM) jgarnett: in anycase can we table this; it is a strong direction; we can take action on the blog side; and will leave the website for another meeting
(6:34:24 AM) jgarnett: 4) geotoolkit response
(6:34:25 AM) ianturton: +1
(6:34:37 AM) pramsey n=pramsey@ entered the room.
(6:35:13 AM) jgarnett: I feel I am in a good position to respond. I will compose an initial letter to the geotools-administration list; and then we can post it.
(6:35:47 AM) jgarnett: I would like to wait until after blog posts are sorted; and after the module clean up.
(6:35:58 AM) ianturton: I'm still not convinced we need to respond
(6:36:13 AM) jgarnett: will it be easier if I make this as a letter from me; as a geotools pmc member; or should I try and gather a bunch of input.
(6:36:31 AM) jgarnett: well I do feel the need to respond to martin leaving
(6:36:59 AM) ianturton: why?
(6:37:11 AM) jgarnett: we should thank him for his hard work if nothing else
(6:37:19 AM) ianturton: OK that
(6:37:31 AM) ianturton: is fair (stupid return key)
(6:38:11 AM) jgarnett: I will compose a letter; you can give me feedback before I post it.
(6:38:23 AM) jgarnett: if you hate it will not post it etc...
(6:39:11 AM) jgarnett: here is a trick question. Where do we "post" the IRC logs? I would like to avoid posting them to the news feed (since that is what got us kicked off
(6:40:06 AM) ianturton: can we just have a wiki page that links to them and point to that in the blog
(6:40:07 AM) aaime: why did that happen?
(6:40:22 AM) aaime: can't we just have the feed report the summary, the topics?
(6:40:55 AM) jgarnett: each aggregator does it differently
(6:41:02 AM) jgarnett: grabs the entire message
(6:41:09 AM) jgarnett: that is how it works....
(6:43:20 AM) jgarnett: okay I think we are out of topics
(6:43:23 AM) jgarnett: can we wrap this up?
(6:43:40 AM) CIA-76: jive * r33077 /trunk/modules/ (5 files in 4 dirs): move wms to extension
(6:43:48 AM) jgarnett: we can post this as a news item on confluence
(6:43:57 AM) ianturton: good plan
(6:44:05 AM) jgarnett: I can set up a seperate blogger thing for geotools
(6:44:11 AM) jgarnett: thanks everyone
(6:44:17 AM) jgarnett: productive meeting; if a little early.
(6:44:31 AM) jgarnett: thanks for the hard work all around

GeoTools 2.5.5 Released

GeoTools is alive and kicking; well kicking out 2.5.5 release anyways. The developers have been very busy lately (organizing due to some staff changes).

Catching up with news posts - on May 5th GeoTools 2.5.5 was released featuring:

  • Improved support for sparse shapefile
  • JDBC-NG improvements
  • Support for case insensitive like comparisons
  • WMS client timeouts
  • New filter functions that can convert types and format numbers
  • New SLD vendor parameters to turn off label conflict
  • resolution and set the goodness of fit while labelling polygons

For more details please check out the Release Notes.