>> Transation: >> - throwing errors out of Transaction is cool; consider any conflict >> to be the same as a locking conflict (ie the modification has been >> made by another so that feature is "locked") >> - leave revision columns out of the describe feature type so that you >> do not have to worry about user's supplying the details... > See above, I would like to avoid that. Ah circles. >> The Transaction "handle" is where your changelog message comes from. >> No additional extra attribute is needed from the Transaction element. > Did not thought about it, but this would be a way to bend the > specification... The WFS 1.1, which is commented, says: > > The handle attribute allows a client application to assign a > client-generated request identifier to a WFS request. The handle is > included to > facilitate error reporting. A WFS may report the handle in an > exception report to identify the offending request or action. If the > handle is not present, then the WFS may employ other means to > localize the error (e.g. line numbers). I have only ever seen it used by external applications to note what they were doing (often in human readable or supplied terms).
I like the idea of using handle here - gives us a chance pick up what non version aware clients thought they were doing: #1 Use Handle (even if we are bending) > Forcing handle to be used as a commit message would be wrong in my > opinion... #2 Use a <!-- comment -->, and consider myself requesting you store the "handle" as a seperate addition to your table ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
