Sunburned Surveyor wrote: > Everytime I think I am close to understanding I get more confused. :] > Jody wrote: "Are you sure you want to do this?" > Gak; don't mind me too much - I need to hack more and email less. > Not after reading your last post to this thread... > > Whoa! I never thought about that. It is an intriguing idea, but also > sort of twisted. In OpenJUMP all of our "readers" provide an > implementation of Feature, which is like the GeoTools interface. I > can't imagine anyone wanting something less from an OpenJUMP reader. > > ...But when I think about GeoTools I realize that people might want > all types of different feature implementations from GPX files read by > my code. (See, I'm already starting to think "GeoTools" instead of > OpenJUMP.) > Yeah - if we did not want this functionality we would not use a Factory; or have an interface - we would be working with a Class. Sweet - glad you understand. Of all the things that make geotools code hard to get started with as a developer (rather than a user) the transition to using Factories is top of the list. > After reading your last post (and benefiting from the light bulb clicking on) > I think I will do the following: > > - Provide DataObjects that can be sucked into a FeatureFactory provided by > client code to create any number of Feature > implementations. I was going to do that anyways, but now I understand most > client code in GeoTools is going to want the raw data as a DataObject, or > even one step lower, as a GPX entity. At first I thought they would only be > interested in an implementation of SimpleFeature. They acutally could want to > use my code at a lower level to create their own implementation of > SimpleFeature. > Just so; in uDig we routinely make our own Factory implementations and call GeoTools code to get "our" objects constructed. Specifically we do this so the implementations provide a few Eclipse specific interfaces, but the general principle applies. > - I'll provide my own implementation of SimpleFeature that adds some GPX > specific behavior. > > The only reason I can think it would be worthwhile to create > SimpleFeatureImpl objects from my code is if UDig can't handle a custom > SimpleFeature implementation. Do you have any thoughts on this? > uDig can handle your own custom SimpleFeatureImplementation; but I would like to give you a factory (inject it into your class) and have you use it. Providing a factory for feature creation is one of the things a geotools user can do as part of making a query.
Landon I am worried we are getting in too deep too early; can you get your code working first - and then we can explore ways to make it more powerful. 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
