Jody Garnett ha scritto: > Andrea wrote: >>> GetFeature >> Hmm... I hear ya, yet there are downsides: >> * I would no more be able to query the feature type for a specific >> revision using a plain GetFeature. This could be done in a >> GetFeatureVersioning extra method instead (something we are thinking >> about anyways to expand what we can ask a version based system), but >> forces an API change in the version datastore as well (since what I'm >> looking for is not in the gt2 filters anymore, unless we expand the >> filter and expression sets to cope... hum, what would you do in this >> regard?). > I think that is a *good* thing; remember you want the revision to be > invisible to the casual use of the system. Do not break out a new > GetFeatureVersioning method - this is *exactly* the kind of thing that > should be done with a vendor specific parameter.
Good point, I have to look into it... >> * the first approach would make it hard to build a checkout, how do >> you know how to parse the revision out of the identifier? > Indeed that idea is poor; lets go with the second one <Feature > fid="people.fred" revision="432456">...</Feature> >> * the second approach would require for a different GML producer, and >> for a place in DefaultFeature to describe the revision (there's >> none at the moment). > Version was part of the GeoTools 2.0 feature model (and was removed as > it was unused), and it is part of the general OGC feature model. So add > it back in now that you have a use for it. Jody, if I start to implement the thing this week, it'll be against gt2 2.3 or at best 2.4 (the latter being unlikely, I don't see a Geoserver come out against 2.4 before March 2007, althought this is just my gut feeling). Geotools 2.0 is something distant and dangerous for my geoserver codebase (aka, it'll probably tear it apart during the port...) >> So, I'm really wondering, if the schema is mandated by an external >> authority, could we avoid messing with versioning and use the complex >> data store instead to get the same result? > My brain - pop! I don't think so ... perhaps I need an example to > understand what you are suggesting. If schema is mandated, I cannot have "version" attribute around. Ok, that schema evidently does not care about versioning, I take my feature with versions and make them go thru a mapping datastore that create a new feture type with not extra attributes. Cheers Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
