Hello all
Le 03/03/13 22:08, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) a écrit :
I would be in favor of no synchronization yet. Let's let concrete use
cases drive the implementation of potentially complex and possibly costly
behavior. Until we have one, let's just keep it simple for now.
Right, I think that omitting synchronization is something to consider
seriously.
Right now the Geotk code has the Java "synchronized" keyword in it. The
proposed path is to first commit the code as it stands regarding
synchronization, then eventually remove the "synchronized" keyword. That
way, we would have a commit to revert if we want to restore back
synchronization.
Yep we have relationships like this in the Tika Metadata object (creating
a new Metadata object creates an internal object, which in turn needs to be
mapped back to the parent metadata object). These reflexive relationships
make sense to add intelligence to set the appropriate hooks.
In the "Instrument versus Platform" that I gave, it was a relatively
straightforward "parent - child" relationship. But other ISO 19115
elements may have more convolved relationship. For example in the
org.opengis.metadata.identification.Identification interface (derived
from ISO 19115 "MD_Identification"), is the "pointOfContacts" property a
subset of the "citation.citedResponsiblyParties" property including only
the instances having their "role" property set to "pointOfContact"?
I realize that what I just said above sound obscure... I will come back
on those question on a case-by-case basis when the classes will be there.
Martin
