A couple of things Justin: - great work! Internet was out at my place so I did not get to review the javadocs yet - can you confirmed you taged and deployed a geoapi 2.1-M9 ? I am tripping up trying to figure out what is going on... > * Killed FeatureCollection > > OK I did not kill it... but I killed it from the factories. Basically > FeatureCollection in geoapi should be ignored. > Thanks for keeping it; if not we would have to throw away all the sys tech work FeatureStore etc... perhaps we should? - Previously I had cleaned up FeatureCollection to no longer be so complicated - We got stuck on it should implement Feature or not (ISO191107 shows things like feature collection just implemented as an association). - The limitation here is we don't have any examples to test against (a good data example is not enought we need running code to test the interfaces against or we are wasting everyones time.
What I would like to do is this: Remove FeatureCollection from the factory interface. If an Feature implementation happens to have a "members" association it may very well decide to implement the FeatureCollection interface as well in order to provide some nice methods for java programs. The end result is similar to SimpleFeature - because we know we have an association "members" some extra methods can be provided. Andrea mentioned fixing up the Query interface to take Name, can we do a sanity check on Query to make sure it agrees with this new feature model? > 1. The SimpleFeature interface now looks pretty much exactly like the > geotools Feature interface > I would like to see the "geometry" methods be consistent with the getAttribute()/getProperty()" - getAttribute( Name ) - getGeometryAttribute( Name ) - getGeometryProperty( Name ) - getProperty( Name ) > 2. It is useful in terms of IDE auto completion in that all the methods > that are most useful show up first in the list. > > Talking with Jody on this one we are a bit torn. It would be great to > have more feedback on this one. > We had considered getValue(Name) and getGeometryValue(Name) but that would but the useful methods at the end ... > And that is it. Let me know what you all think. Let the second round of > review begin. > Fun ;-) Justin you better put a deadline on the second round of review. Great work Justin, Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
