for me you posts get even more complicated. ;) but what i like to say is (although i don't want to weak up sleeping dogs), that i don't realy see a point against a name for a feature collection if it is not a compulsory property that must be set. At least i don't see how it could harm the current implementation (???)
But on the other hand i know that Larry and Martin are the wise guys here and that "project driven" devleopment is rather bad for a clean architecture. (just a note to explain why i always consult Larry on devel things, is that i would like to have more or less Skyjump in sync with OJ) stefan Martin Davis schrieb: >> I think that FeatureSchema instances would be local to the data source >> used to load the layer (e.g. file or database connection), within the >> scope of that names should be unique. >> > Hmm... seems to me this would then require all code that depended on > name uniqueness to then be aware of the DataSource of the FeatureSchema > - which isn't currently provided in the schema, and might be fiddly to > check. > > Perhaps the data source could be used to generate a unique namespace (as > a String). > > Yup, this is getting complicated. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
