I see - with that in mind I may may the proposal to change ResourceInfo into an
abstract class; for exactly the same reasons.
Jody
On 23/04/2010, at 5:15 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>>> The thing I'm not convinced about in the above:
>>> - it forces the qualified names into the simpler DataStore API....
>>> - not sure if we want to pass the FeatureType as a parameter
>>> in supportsCreate and supportsUpdate, maybe they should just be:
>>> supportsUpdate(Name) and supportsCreate()
>> interface DataAccessInfo (){
>> ....
>> boolean isCreateSchemaSuppported(); // for shapefile you can only call
>> createSchema once!
>> boolean isDropSchemaSupported();
>> boolean isUpdateSchemaSupported();
>> }
>
>
> Absolutely no interfaces, interfaces in these cases are bad.
> I want something I can extend in six months time without breaking the
> API so that I can add, for example, some mapper object helping out a
> data transfer tool (an object answering the question "how are my
> FeatureType fields going to be transformed by createSchema()?").
>
> Interface creep is one of the reasons GeoTools API is hard to use,
> think Query vs DefaultQuery
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
>
>
> --
> Andrea Aime
> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> Expert service straight from the developers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
