Hi Alvaro,
thank you so much for your ideas!
On 7 Oct 2005 at 8:30, Alvaro Zabala wrote:
> How about not to implement explicit topology? I was thinking about a
> model like ArcSDE Topology Rules.
>
> I'll explain this. In ArcSDE you can implement topology rules, like
> triggers that reviews some topology constraint every time you edit a
> geometry (before or after).
This was our first idea: using IntegrityValidation objects, plus some
metadata to handle the declarative part of topology (yes, we could
also rely on the configuration of Validations without using
metadata).
These validators would be attached at the transaction processor which
is currently in GeoServer... but we're planning to move in in GT, so
that it can be use outside from GS, for example in uDig.
The validators are planned to be used for *deriving* new geometries
from existing ones, and not only for validation. Probably they aren't
enough for an editing tool.
> To do that,
> we must have a FeatureRelationship class which relates both
> FeatureCollection. This relationship could be alphanumeric or
> topologic. To implement that, we could work with an abstract class
> like this:
>
> public abstract class FeatureRelationship{
>
> If these topology rules dont verify, it would throw some events, and
> some listeners would process it.
This is very interesting. I think this model can fit the Validation
model so we can make both the interfaces work together.
Cheers
Sig
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
