Hi Martin, Regarding making the fields private, I need to research that more. It will be good to keep api stability for future evolutions as well as keep the code simple. I am not opposed to creating getter-setter functions.
There is a relationship between CodePage and java.nio.charset.Charset, I am not sure if everything maps exactly but it would be good to leverage it. https://www.iana.org/assignments/character-sets/character-sets.xhtml +1 on the "Simple Feature specification" and making it more generic. FieldDescriptor is specific to the ShapeFile internal format. When you say packaged private do you mean a private inner class with another class? I will look into making the CodePage more integrated with how java handles Charsets first Thanks! Travis On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Travis > > There is a few though that popup from my head: > > * I noticed that in the ShapeFile class, all fields are public. Do you > think we could make them private in order to keep more flexibility > for future evolutions? > * I wonder if there is some relationship planed between CodePage and > java.nio.charset.Charset? > * The ShapeTypeEnum seems to contain well known types from "Simple > Feature" specification. I wonder if we could / should handle them in > a way that apply to a wider range of storage? (Johann could tell > more on this topic). > * FieldDescriptor seems quite specific to the ShapeFile internal. > Should it be package-privated? > > > Cheers, > Martin >
