Hey, just a question.
What would be the impact to geoserver if a datastore does not respect the
convention of providing feature ids as <simple type name>.<backend
identifier>
I'm betting the only compromised feature for geoserver would be the WFS
GetFeature request with featureId= parameter?
Also, am I right this is one of those kind of mandatory conventions, like
the one for datastore factories to support a "namespace" parameter, but
that are not set in stone anywhere?
The feature id issue bothers me since a while now and would like to gather
opinions on whether it shouldn't be mandatory for geotools datastores to
prefix the feature ids that way. It looks to me like a WFS think leaking
down to the data access layer, in order for GeoServer to be able of
supplying unique ids at the service instance level, which in an ideal world
should be GeoServer's responsibility (like in GeoServer being in charge of
prefixing the workspace + type name to the geotools provided feature id).
--
Gabriel Roldan
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimize network downtime and maximize team effectiveness.
Reduce network management and security costs.Learn how to hire
the most talented Cisco Certified professionals. Visit the
Employer Resources Portal
http://www.cisco.com/web/learning/employer_resources/index.html
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
