I could go either way with Justin's suggestion, but if we merge ecobenefits
with treemap we should do it as a folder with an __init__.py, it's too big
for a single file

On Friday, October 25, 2013, Justin Walgran wrote:

> In opentreemap/ecobenefits/views.py:
>
> > @@ -104,5 +105,16 @@ def tree_benefits(instance, tree_id):
> >
> >      return rslt
> >
> > +def within_itree_regions(request, _):
> > +    x = request.GET.get('x', None)
> > +    y = request.GET.get('y', None)
> > +    return (bool(x) and bool(y) and
> > +            ITreeRegion.objects
> > +            .filter(geometry__contains=Point(float(x),
> > +                                             float(y))).exists())
> > +
> > +within_itree_regions_view = json_api_call(
> > +    instance_request(within_itree_regions))
>
> @steventlamb <https://github.com/steventlamb> I think your struggling
> against our early good intentions that unfortunately resulted in a leaky,
> non-helpful abstraction. I think we should remove the ecobenifits
> "application" and move all of its functionality into an econbenefits.pyfile under
> treemap.
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/azavea/OTM2/pull/804/files#r7215170>
> .
>


-- 
Michael V. Maurizi Jr, Software Developer

Azavea |  340 N 12th St, Suite 402, Philadelphia, PA
mmaurizi@azavea.com  | T 215.558.6190
Web azavea.com <http://www.azavea.com/>  |  Blog
azavea.com/blogs<http://www.azavea.com/Blogs>
| Twitter @azavea <http://twitter.com/azavea>