Saul we must limp before we can run ... bring on the patch. The test cases will be useful during the switch to the new FM (you do have test cases as part of your patch ;-) ).
Jody > Cool. Totally makes sense now. Feel a little stupid for reading > "newType.numAtts() > oldType.numAtts" as "newType.numAtts() != > oldType.numatts()" > > In any case, with a few fixes that I put into ReTypeFeatureReader, it > does everything it used to do, and now covers a slightly more general > case (of "casting" featureTypes, rather than just subsetting them). > > So now comes the dilemma: > > 1 Clearly the new FM solves my problem (re-creating a datastore with > just a different GeometryAttributeType) > > 2 The new FM is not available to Geoserver right now, and without > something that solves the #1, I can't do the nice thing that I want to > do in Geoserver. > > > So should I do all the gathering-up work to make this into a legit patch > to 2.3.x so that I can fix inlinefeatures in geoserver? > > Or do I leave this one be and just have people be required to put an SRS > on their inlinefeatures in wms requests? > > The touched files in geotools, by the way, are: > > module/main/src/org/geotools/styling/SLDInlineFeatureParser.java -- > correctly determine the CRS when creating inline featuretypes, if that > info is available (in the "srsName" attribute) > > module/main/src/org/geotools/feature/type/GeometricAttributeType.java -- > override "equals()" to make two GeometricAttributeTypes which have > different CRSs actually be unequal > > module/main/src/org/geotools/data/ReTypeFeatureReader.java > check that 'casted' attributeTypes are compatible, rather than equal. > > > Thoughts guys? I'd really like to see "kind" or "nice" support for > inlinefeatures in geoserver, but I respect that there's not much love > for fixing up and testing the old FM right now. > > --saul > > > >> Which is to say in perhaps more clear terms that the primary purpsose of >> the retype feature reader is actually _not_ to reorder elements, it's >> more to return a limited subset of the properties. Since we didn't have >> a way to say in the featureType that 'this attribute isn't requested' >> (we had 'this is null', but not requested is a different thing), we just >> made a new stub featureType on the fly... >> >> C >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
