Andrea Aime wrote: > Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: >> Hi Andrea, >> >> Is there a plan to merge the versioned datastore back with the >> non-versioned one at some point? Or is the intended use to choose one >> or the other. I can see that being a bit of a problem from a >> maintainance standpoint. > > In the long run I would like to have just one, and allow feature type > to flip from versioned to non versioned state and have the datastore > manage both... hmmm... I think I can do that from the start, because > in fact it affects quite a bit of places (feature type computation, > extra tables needed for versioning, different ways of handling data > retrivial and data writing). > > Yeah, doing it after the fact could prove to be quite painful in fact. > I'll do a datastore that supports both versioned and non versioned > stuff, so that we can simply drop it in as a replacement once done. > > Does this work for you? Some sort of transition plan after the work is completed is definitley needed. This one should work fine. My next question is how much complexity this will add to the datastore? The postgis / jdbc modules are already hard enough to maintain as is.
As the module maintainer of postgis, major changes going on in the module reduces my ability to be an effective maintainer. I may ask that you take responsibility as co-module maintainer with me. -Justin > > Cheers > Andrea > > !DSPAM:1004,456efd11238391804284693! > -- Justin Deoliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Open Planning Project http://topp.openplans.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
