Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Yeah, thats all i did was remove it from the factories. > >> 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? >> > Hmmm... not sure about this, Wont this kill the ability to use xpath? > yeah - good point. moving on ... nothing to see here. >>> 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 ): Object >> - getGeometryAttribute( Name ): Object (depends on your Geometry >> implementation) >> - getGeometryProperty( Name ): GeometryAttribute >> - getProperty( Name ): Property >> > Can you include return types of the methods please :) > I fixed the above - and see a problem: getGeometryProperty( Name ) returns a GeometryAttribute? Do we care? >> Fun ;-) Justin you better put a deadline on the second round of review. >> > Ideally we can get everyones concerns addressed and out in the open by > Friday... but that may be pushing it. > Justin we need to push it - how about we start working against these things on Friday, and we close the door Monday? I doubt we will get a good review until people can run sample code anyways?
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
