I agree with the above comments. We should keep new classes or major
overhauls of an existing class out of the com.vividsolutions package
hierarchy.
I'm curious if David or Ed could offer thoughts on Vivid Solutions
eventually merging OpenJUMP and JUMP. I know there would be some code
quality conc
Hi,
Fixed
Sorry for the disturbance and thanks to Paul for having noticed the
missing files.
Michael
Paul Austin a écrit :
>Michael,
>
>can you checkin org.openjump.core.ui.images.IconLoader as your new
>VertexZValueStyle needs it.
>
>Paul
>
>Michaël Michaud wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>If everyon
Michael,
can you checkin org.openjump.core.ui.images.IconLoader as your new
VertexZValueStyle needs it.
Paul
Michaël Michaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If everyone is ok, I'll commit a Z value decorator (looking like the
> index decorator or the xy one),
>
> @developpers
> - I added the style in the org
yep.. i agree..
we never know if VividSolutions will pick-up development again ;)
and then it would be a bit more difficult to sync packages.
but appearently we should think about a unification by 2008?
stefan
Paul Austin schrieb:
> Michael,
>
> My view is anything new goes into open jump which
Michael,
My view is anything new goes into open jump which is the core for our
project.
Stuff in com.vivid should be modifications of their classes only.
Paul
Michaël Michaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If everyone is ok, I'll commit a Z value decorator (looking like the
> index decorator or the xy one),
Hi,
If everyone is ok, I'll commit a Z value decorator (looking like the
index decorator or the xy one),
@developpers
- I added the style in the org package, as O. Bedel and P. Austin
before, then I had to add also a new image directory in the org package
as well as a new IconLoader : wonder i
