Rob Atkinson wrote: > It would be nice if we could migrate current Feature to SimpleFeature, > but maybe the best alternative is to call the new model something that > reflects the point - GeneralFeature, FlexibleFeature, > CompleteFeature, FullFeature, GenericFeature, etc > Well in a sense we can; in the generics approach FeatureSource, FeatureReader, FeatureVisitor all remain named as they are; generics are used to specifiy the SimpleFeature part. Since most users will access these via DataStore for now the SimpleFeature part will be provided for them.
In geneal the generics approach is less both for me - there is simply less classes to document. The no generics approach is also nice because everything is nice and clear :-) I figure gabriel should have strong guidence for us as he is planning on doing the work. > I dont know enough to choose between the implementations, and its not > my vote, but have been impressed that the debate got so constructive > in spite of lack of instant agreement. > They all do the same thing; and that is part of what makes the debate about approach difficult :-) Because it comes down to style rather than ability. > Is it possible to pursue migrating critical client code like WFS and > WMS against these and see at what point you are forced to make a hard > decision about the implementation? > I think we have started; WFS 1.1 is the motivation for taking this problem on now. As far as I can tell reading the code examples - all these approaches are capable. Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
