Aside: Andrea I am done w/ feedback ... I feel what you are doing is important so I gave you one round of feedback, and then tried to answer any questions you had about my comments.
You can carefully ignore me (I won't even mind); part of it being a review by your peers is knowing when to ignore them and meet your deadlines. Remember the "unsupported" module idea provides a second opportunity for review when you upgrade to supported status... All the best; Jody > Chris, need help here... what do you think? > > Message from the gt2/geoserver mailing list... > I have the impression Jody not only wants to provide feedback, > but also wants to leave his on mark on the thing :-p > Or maybe it's just me being too defensive... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> 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 > > > !DSPAM:1023,456dd184314621362196140! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
