Thanks for getting back to me. > Jody Garnett ha scritto: >> Hi Andrea; I am afraid you missed the part we needed your help on - >> choose between these code examples. > I fear you did not read the place in my mail where I talk about it: Sorry Andrea; I was hoping you woudl delete the page that did not match your preference. I will do that now. > "About the Feature.getDefaultGeometry(), I prefer this alternative > compared to getDefaultGeometryProperty() but... there is a big but! > > In 2.4.x we deprecated getDefaultGeometry() and replaced with > getPrimaryGeometry(). Now we go back? > Do whatever you please, but please, don't ask library users to > change that method name two times!! (same goes for SimpleFeatureType)." GeoTools only had getPrimaryGeometry() in order to match "pre-review" SimpleFeature - we should of had this review a while ago. > So I already expressed my vote to favour getDefaultGeometry(), it's > just that none of the options you provided matches the changes > that have just been performed on gt2 (getPrimaryGeometry()). > And I want to underline, whilst I have a small preference for > getDefaultGeometry, that's not the important thing, the important > thing is that whatever name you choose must be back ported to 2.4.x > before we release in order to avoid changing that method twice > in two subsequent releases. Yep.
Enjoy your weekend. 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
