search

dwins / geoscript.scala

Scala implementation of the GeoScript API
http://geoscript.org/
MIT License
47 stars 14 forks source link

Compilation error (OS X 10.9): object builder is not a member of package org.geoscript.geometry ?! #36

Closed zgalic closed 10 years ago

zgalic commented 10 years ago

[error] /Users/zgalic/geoscript.scala/examples/src/main/scala/example/Postgis.scala:5: object builder is not a member of package org.geoscript.geometry [error] import org.geoscript.geometry.builder._ [error] ^ [error] one error found error Compilation failed

dwins commented 10 years ago

I believe this is another (slightly more subtle) file naming issue like #35. org.geoscript.geometry currently contains both a class named 'Builder' (for providing customizable factories for constructing geometry objects) and an object named 'builder' (a default factory that should be suitable for most usages.) I'll have to think a bit and come up with a naming convention for these default builders (there is a similar construct in a few other packages) that doesn't present issues on case-insensitive or case-folding filesystems.

velvia commented 10 years ago

@dwins This seems like a great project, I just pulled and hit this issue. Here is my temporary workaround:

// }

// package geometry {

(lines 117-119)

Is this project still actively maintained btw?

dwins commented 10 years ago

I've not been working on it much recently, no. I've been focusing on GeoGit and as it is a pure Java project I don't have much need for GeoScript Scala.

velvia commented 10 years ago

@dwins I'd be interested in maintaining it. For now I'm going to fork it and continue working on it, probably publishing jars under a different organization so as not to confuse anyone else.

dwins commented 10 years ago

I put in a more permanent fix for this: rather than making the builder a member of the package object I have renamed it to avoid having the geometry.Builder class and geometry.builder instance differ by only the case of one character in the name. @velvia I think it'd be worth including in your fork.