[PROJ] Motion: Accept RFC4 (PROJ JNI Overhaul)

Kristian Evers kreve at sdfe.dk
Thu Jul 18 10:10:33 PDT 2019

> On 17 Jul 2019, at 17:02, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
> I'm not PSC of course, but with a lot of +0 sentiment (which I interpret
> as "I don't really like this, but I don't feel like it's reasonable to
> object"), it seems like it might be a good time to have the java binding
> in it's own package.

This is exactly how I am reading things as well. Thanks for putting it in
writing, Greg. 

I am withdrawing the RFC and will instead work towards providing a
Java interface for PROJ in a stand-alone repository. Exactly where is
yet to be decided. Maybe as part of the OSGeo GitHub organisation?

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on this RFC. Many of the comments
we’ve received are still valid for a stand-alone package and will definitely
help improve these new bindings.

As for the current Java bindings in the PROJ repository, I would say
that the logical extension to this debate is that they will have to be
removed in the near future. More on that later.


> From a packaging system point of view, separate is better, as it would
> be crazy to require java to be installed to build the basic proj
> package, and thus you end up building a proj package and then a
> proj-java package.  If the java bindings are in a subdir and have their
> own entirely separate build system (such that building proj doesn't
> build them, and building the java bindings uses the installed proj and
> doesn't build it locally), that's not really a problem, but it then also
> doesn't really help to have them in the same source tarball.
> So were I PSC, I'd be inclined to -1 and +1 in favor of "put this in a
> separate repo".   That's not meant to be criticism of the code or java,
> just a strong bias to having separable things separate.
> _______________________________________________
> PROJ mailing list
> PROJ at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/proj

More information about the PROJ mailing list