On Thursday 27 May 2010 11:53:52 am Andrea Aime wrote: > Mauricio Pazos ha scritto: > > On Thursday 27 May 2010 10:58:48 am Mauricio Pazos wrote: > >> On Thursday 27 May 2010 10:48:13 am Mauricio Pazos wrote: > >>>> Possible ways out: > >>>> - use an identifier that's very unlikely or downright wrong as an > >>>> attribute name. Something like @id or ::id or id() (just making > >>>> them up, did not check if I'm actually introducing other problems with > >>>> any of them). > >>>> - turn that into a pseudo function call, something like > >>>> id_in(id1, id2, ..., idn) > > > > A sentence like this works and it has not conflicts with other sentence. > > I must to check the ECQL grammar details. > > Following this idea the options could be > > id_in(id1, id2, ..., idn) > > or > > id(id1, id2, ..., idn) > > or > > in(id1, id2, ..., idn) > > more? > > I'll let other people better than me at naming provide suggestions. > id_in(id1, ...) is fine by me. > The danger with using a function like syntax is to conflict with an > existing filter function, in particular, "id" is already taken, > see the filter capabilities section: > > http://demo.opengeo.org/geoserver/ows?service=wfs&version=1.0.0&request=Get >Capabilities understood > > Alternatively we could use a syntax that does not look like a function > call, something like id{id1, id2, ...} or id[id1, ..., idn] I agree, I will analyse this too > > Pity that "ID" cannot be used, it would have been backwards compatible > (I think). Yes, it could be a problem, I am thinking in this cases to query by fid "ID" like "city.1" "ID" = 1 ID in (...) I think it could be confuse > > Cheers > Andrea
-- Mauricio Pazos www.axios.es ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
