[geotk] Re: Geotoolkit Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4

[Francisco José Peñarrubia]

Hi Martin.

Option 2 seems ok (units of measure), and JScience can be the second option.

I think unitsofmeasure covers most of the measurements that we may face 
with sensores, one of the most challenging environments where we can 
deal with units.

Best regards, and good work!.

Fran.

geotoolkit-request at lists.osgeo.org escribió:
> Send Geotoolkit mailing list submissions to
> 	geotoolkit at lists.osgeo.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geotoolkit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	geotoolkit-request at lists.osgeo.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	geotoolkit-owner at lists.osgeo.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Geotoolkit digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. JSR-275 (Units of measurement) rejected by the JCP
>       (Martin Desruisseaux)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2010 10:38:57 +0100
> From: Martin Desruisseaux <martin.desruisseaux at geomatys.fr>
> Subject: [geotk] JSR-275 (Units of measurement) rejected by the JCP
> To: geoapi <geoapi-devel at lists.sourceforge.net>,
> 	geotoolkit at lists.osgeo.org
> Message-ID: <4B9B5D31.4010401 at geomatys.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hello all
>
> GeoAPI (and consequently Geotoolkit.org / GeoTools) has one dependency: the 
> javax.measure.unit.Unit class defined by JSR-275. JSR-275 has been submitted 
> twice for vote to the Java Community Process (JCP) board. The first proposal has 
> been rejected for good technical raisons (in my opinion - I was in agreement 
> with many of the comments posted by the reviewers). The second proposal was 
> considered a significant improvement but still has been rejected. Some JCP 
> members wish so see JSR-275 continuing its effort, but it is not clear that we 
> are allowed to according JCP procedures.
>
> The JSR-275 leader (which is also a member of the JCP board) considers that 
> JSR-275 is terminated (dead) and suggests to move to 
> http://www.unitsofmeasure.org (which define UCUM and would apparently be happy 
> to host the ex-JSR-275 library). On the other hand, the library implementor 
> wishes to move the unit library back to JScience (its original location), as a 
> standalone module.
>
> I would like to know what peoples on this list prefer. We need to take a 
> decision relatively fast, since the GeoAPI 3.0 specification is already 
> submitted to the OGC Architecture Board (this is the step before the 60 days 
> public review period). Possible actions are:
>
> 1) Continue JSR-275 or start a new JSR (it would be the third one) so we can
>     keep the "javax.measure" namespace, but we will need new team of volunters.
>     The JCP will probably not accept a new JSR with a team made only of the old
>     members.
>
> 2) Move the unit library to the http://www.unitsofmeasure.org project. The
>     "javax.measure" package name would be renamed as "org.unitsofmeasure".
>     This is maybe the closest we can get to a "standard" organisation
>     dedicaced to Units.
>
> 3) Let the unit library moves back to its original location, JScience. The
>     "javax.measure" package name would be renamed as "org.jscience.measure".
>     However if we follow that path, GeoAPI will depends on a particular Unit
>     implementation, defined by an external project. This is a bit against
>     the goal to give implementation freedom.
>
> 4) Define our own Unit interface. However it would make more difficult
>     to leverage existing libraries like JScience or unitsofmeasure.org,
>     since those libraries will not implement our Unit interface.
>
> Any input would be highly appreciated, preferrably in the comming week...
>
> 	Best regards,
>
> 		Martin
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geotoolkit mailing list
> Geotoolkit at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geotoolkit
>
>
> End of Geotoolkit Digest, Vol 11, Issue 4
> *****************************************
>