>
> So there are two approaches here ... a method to check:
> interface GmlObjectStore { boolean isIdentifiedApplicable(
> GmlObjectId id );
> Object getGmlObject( GmlObjectId id ) throws IOException;
> }
>
> Or we would need some way take apart the structure of the GmlObjectId a
> bit (figure out the datastore id or typeName). I prefer the first
> approach as it provides better information hiding (each data store
> implementation can have its own approach to recognizing and unpacking a
> GmlObjectId).
>
I prefer the first. Taking apart the structure of a GmlObjectId is a
hack. However... I don't see isIdentifiedApplicable() as being much
better since the datastore sill probably not know how to take apart teh
identifier either. Most certainly it will just turn the thing to a
string and do a look up. And since it does not throw IOException it
means it cannot even do that. I dont see much use for it. Just returning
null from getGmlObject is just as meaningul.
+1 on the name though. I like GmlObjectStore better than GmlObjectAware.
> Note that previously I had placed object lookup along with other cross
> datastore concerns in the Registry interface.
>
> I am not interested in using Hints for this functionality; it is a cute
> hack but we can do better.
Actually bringing yup hints... this interface needs to support hints as
well since the spec for GmlObjectId supports xlink associations and the
way I have solved this for GetFeature was with using hints to specify
how far an association should traverse... etc... So in code what i need:
Object getGmlObject( GmlObjectId id, Hints hints ) throws IOException;
>
> Jody
>
>
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> As part of ows5 and a wfs 1.1 xlink reference implementation, we have
>> been tasked with implementing the wfs GetGmlObject operation in
>> GeoServer. I have created a proposal for the geotools component of the
>> work:
>>
>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Support+GetGMLObject
>>
>> The proposal is actually broken up into two alternatives (both explained
>> in the proposal itself). So for voting there are two parts, the normal
>> +1/-1 schema, plus voting for the preferred alternative.
>>
>> Let the comments and feedback begin.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Justin
>>
>>
>
>
> !DSPAM:4007,477d23a09973668746562!
>
--
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
http://topp.openplans.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
