On Thursday 07 February 2008 01:18:35 am Justin Deoliveira wrote: > I have been giving a bit of rough feedback to others for their proposals > so here is a chance for people to get back at me. no need to, I don't see this as personal ;)
> I finally got around > to writing up my ideas on how to cleanup data access with regard to > feature collection. > > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/DataStore+Cleanup ok, the idea is sound and imho indisputable (the Implementation Complexity diagram speaks by itself). So just some cosmetic/collaboration feedback: - typo: "ocus the DataStore/FeatureSource api around FeatureWriter and FeatureWriter" should be FeatureReader and FeatureWriter. - wonder how many new classes we get over how many we get rid of. Looks like we get rid of 18 and stick to 25 iterator+readers, plus the per datastore specific (reader) ones. How many of those 25 classes are new? - wonder how would they play with plain Feature. What happens if they're phrased in term of features or parametrized? - naming: DataStore2 and ContentDataStore do not communicate their intents well. Or at all. - seems like this proposal and the feature access one should work together in order to ensure a one time revamp with as few glitches as possible. - personally would like to get rid of the getXXX(Filter) methods and stick to just getXXX(Query) - getWriter(): being both an inserting and updating writter looks anti-natural. Not sure the exact use case it serves though, but you already have getWriterInsert(), good, and getWriterUpdate(), good. good stuff, Gabriel > > -Justin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
