Summary: - http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEO-141 Formally track this little adventure of ours (so Martin does not kick me) - http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-1916 Update the Hints to mention the new factories
Andrea Aime wrote: >> Difficulty is that this either needs to be a structures exception >> message (indicating say the xpath to the problem and kind of problem) >> or we should provides a utility method to do this kind of check. > I was leaning towards a structured exception message. Like, I'd > prefer to keep all the validation logic in one place, and possibly in > an obvious one, splitting it around does not look nice to me. > IllegalAttributeException is already structured, it has the descriptor > of the failing attribute and the value that does not conform to it, > too bad it's not exposing them, but it's just a matter of adding a > couple of getters. Okay - so can you decisive and direct me on this one? > If the strict option is meant to help debug only, what about a system > variable to enable it? Yes; the idea is to swap out factories - see hint below >>> It seems to me this kind of change would require at least a one day >>> sprint... what do we do in the meantime? If you want to call a sprint on this stuff I will join you; we are too close to our deadline on the 15th here to do much. Perhaps we can chat online and sort this out? >> Backing up: >> - Our goal was to make the FeatureTypes static utility method >> available for people to find; we have now done that correct? > More or less, we do if we provide a validate() method that throws an > exception giving people the full meal, otherwise we have to > keep that Types utility class around, have isValid() call it, and > then have the user call it again if he wants to know what is not > valid, bleck... Okay so you want to change the method; I can do that now. Please review when you wake up. > System wide == configurable? Where is that located? When I last looked it was a Hint; let me check ... okay we got a FEATURE_FACTORY but no FEATURE_FACTORY hint yet; something to fix... http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-1916 > Or is it just a hard coded default in the builder? No the builder should either: - be created with a factory - or look up the default in the usual manner >> Aside: The idea of remembering the factory seems like a little bit of >> gain; while I had similar thoughts they come from a different problem >> When working with Shapefiles only a limited set of content is >> supported (max string length etc...). Having >> ShapefileDataStore.getFeatureTypeFactory() return a factory that >> knows about these limitations is a sensible way to go... > Uuh, not sure... the ideas of factories is to put the user in control > not the lower levels? Yeah you see the conflict eh? (oh wait that was a Canadian moment). I agree that the idea of factories is to put the user in control; we still may need something like "capabilities" to let people know what data formats are supported ... something for another day? Jody ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
