Hello Johann
Thanks for the comments.
Le 16/12/14 17:17, johann sorel a écrit :
> - DBF file are sometimes found with other format, not only shapefile,
> so having dbf utility classes visible could be a good thing if they
> can be used separately.
Right. I think that Marc's goal to make the database accessible through
JDBC interfaces is a nice path. In this case, the public API is the set
of JDBC interfaces, and the usual approach is to hide the implementation
as much as possible.
> - Same for geometry, the same encoding format is also used in esri
> geodatabases.
Right. But this is the purpose of a geometry module, to be designed with
ISO 19107 in mind. This is a wider scope than Shapefile, which is why I
would expect Shapefile to use objects from the geometry module as much
as possible. Admittedly the geometry module is not yet there, but I
think that keeping in mind that such module is planed should make us
conservative about Shapefile-specific geometric objects.
> - I also agree that 'making it work' is more important then 'make it
> clean' , at least until it works and is tested.
Agree too. But we can do that in a progressive way: being conservative
first, then expose new API progressively. Is is easier to start
conservatively, then open progressively, than doing the opposite path.
Martin
