Martin, If the FeatureSchema class could be extended to have a name property, with a getName (and maybe a setName) with a default constructor and a constructor that takes the name as an argument then that would be great. As we have default constructor existing code won't break as the name is optional.
The advantage of having the name is that if you were doing some processing of features and don't have reference to the layer you can find out what type of feature it is and do different processing accordingly. Paul Martin Davis wrote: > BTW, the idea of having hum-readable names for FeatureSchemas is a nice > one. I'd definitely support adding that functionality, even if it isn't > exposed right now. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
