Adrian Custer ha scritto: > Hey Andrea, > > First of all, your work has me very excited---it seems like an effort > that will raise the bar substantially on the utility of Geotools. So > thanks for your work. > > Secondly, I'm saying something really small and unrelated to any > implementation question. You raise a scenario of filtering against > initial state or end state and show that it leads to problems. All I am > saying is "your scenario leads to problems because logically you have to > filter against the changeset rather than against the start/ end states"
Yes, good point, and may be what I'm doing, or not, depending on semantics. What I'm doing is taking each feature that changed between revision m and n, and saying it matches the filter if at least one state of the feature between m and n matches the filter. So, if I say filter against a certain bbox, I will say the a feature matches the filter if it has changed between m and n and at least one of its revisions stayed inside the bbox. Or maybe all, I mean, if the feature never moved, stayed in the bbox all time, but some other attributes changed, I will match it as well. This is consistent with someone asking to rollback every change that occurred in the area matched by the bbox. Is it what you intended? 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 Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
