Hi Netanel, CCed Pawel (GeoSpark Python), Georg (who might be also interested in this issue), Sedona-dev
I think reflection would be a neat solution but it may bring technical debt in the future and cause problems to the python API. In the long run, a wrapper around JTS geometry would be a better solution although we may need to change many places in the code. Folks, what do you think? Thanks, Jia On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 7:49 AM Netanel Malka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > Currently, we are having some problems with userData on Geometry. > The problems are: > > 1. Geometry toString function doesn't take userData into account > 2. Geometry equals function doesn't take userData into account > > > Our proposed solution is to wrap Geometry with a proxy object, that holds > the Geometry and handles other columns instead of using Goemtery user data. > Another possible solution is using reflection to change methods on > Geometry itself > > What do you think we should do? > > Thanks. Regards > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020, 21:32 Jia Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Netanel, >> >> Sorry. I somehow missed this email. The only test that GeoSpark does not >> cover for JTSplus is this one: >> https://github.com/jiayuasu/JTSplus/blob/master/src/test/java/jtsplustest/GeometryToStringTest.java >> >> If you can add this back to GeoSpark, I think you are good to go. >> >> Thanks, >> Jia >> >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 6:08 AM Netanel Malka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Have you had time to look at this? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Netanel Malka. >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Netanel Malka <[email protected]> >>> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 11:06 >>> Subject: Re: Use JTS as a dependency instead of JTSPlus >>> To: Jia Yu <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> OK. >>> We saw that in Geometry the userData field changed from null to "", is >>> it crucial? because this is a change that I believe that JTS won't accept. >>> >>> Also, does GeoSpark tests are covered JTSPlus changes? If all the >>> geospark tests are working, does it mean that we didn't break anything? >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 18:54, Jia Yu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> HI Netanel, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your work on this. >>>> >>>> userData in Envelope can be ignored. We will no longer support userData >>>> in Envelope. >>>> >>>> Userdata field is used to hold non-spatial attributes in GeoSpark core. >>>> When print a spatial object, userData will be printed out as a WKT string. >>>> >>>> In GeoSpark, I think it only calls the getUserData or setUserData, but >>>> the majority of the work was done in JTSplus. When check the equality of >>>> two objects in JTSplus, we also check the UserData but JTS by default does >>>> not check that. >>>> >>>> >>>> We communicate via mail since this thread is gonna be long. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Jia >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Jia Yu >>>> >>>> Ph.D. in Computer Science >>>> >>>> Arizona State University <http://www.asu.edu/> >>>> >>>> Reach me via: Homepage <http://jiayuasu.github.io/> | GitHub >>>> <https://github.com/jiayuasu> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 3:01 AM Netanel Malka <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> how are you? >>>>> >>>>> I am working on this issue >>>>> <https://github.com/DataSystemsLab/GeoSpark/issues/435> which I and >>>>> my friends trying to upgrade the JTS version on GeoSpark. >>>>> We are facing the userData field on Envelope which arent exists on JTS. >>>>> Based on this PR <https://github.com/locationtech/jts/issues/364> I >>>>> saw it's deprecated, can we ignore it? >>>>> >>>>> Also, We started to search for the using of userData for Geometry on >>>>> GeoSpark and we found only this place: >>>>> added equality of userData in Circle >>>>> <https://github.com/superDoss/GeoSpark/commit/b8681267b9c32b8f40f8e4476d5dcce18b7dedc7> >>>>> >>>>> We would like to know if there are *more places* that we need to >>>>> implement the equals on *userData*. >>>>> >>>>> *p.s.* >>>>> Did a mail is a convenient communication channel for you? >>>>> Or do you prefer I will open a new bug for that issue? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Netanel Malka >>>>> >>>>
