I think it's been there for a while -- atleast since 1.6
isEmpty() is an abstract method of Geometry.
David
On Dec 14, 2007 6:16 AM, Justin Deoliveira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> That would work great!!. Which version of JTS supports this? In the
> version geotools is using, Geom
Hi David,
That would work great!!. Which version of JTS supports this? In the
version geotools is using, GeometryCollection has isEmpty(), but i cant
see the equivalent in Geometry. Was it something that was recently added?
-Justin
David Zwiers wrote:
> What about using an empty geometry? That i
Jody Garnett wrote:
> Jesse had the same request from me last month; how does. JTS.NULL sound
> for a Geometry subclass "Null Object" ?
A static object wont work in my case. It needs to be something i can
instantiate so i can hack its user data on an instance by instance basis.
> ---
What about using an empty geometry? That is currently supported in JTS.
On Dec 13, 2007 9:32 AM, Andrea Aime <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
> ...
> > Indeed. My idea would be to subclass each of the geometry types. So
> > creating a class called NullPoint, NullLineStri
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
...
> Indeed. My idea would be to subclass each of the geometry types. So
> creating a class called NullPoint, NullLineString, etc... that
> implemented the NullGeometry interface. Then no existing code should run
> into any of the exception cases which arise when some
Jesse had the same request from me last month; how does. JTS.NULL sound
for a Geometry subclass "Null Object" ?
> So... my thought is to create an interface called "NullGeometry" or
> something like that. That way in the encoder bindings i can do an
> instance of check and encode it as an "xlinked
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
> Hi all,
>
> I am emailing the list hoping to get some feedback for an idea that i
> have. First a bit of context. I am working on the wfs xlink
> implementation for OWS-5. One of the requirements is to be able to
> "xlink" geometries.
>
> Now... i know the proper w
> What baout using the new feature model userdata instead?
> Anyways, yeah, userdata is available on Feature only so it annoying to
> store attributes related metadata there...
>
THe problem is that i need to do teh check in the GEometryTypeBinding,
which needs a geometry to work. It would be a b
Hi all,
I am emailing the list hoping to get some feedback for an idea that i
have. First a bit of context. I am working on the wfs xlink
implementation for OWS-5. One of the requirements is to be able to
"xlink" geometries.
Now... i know the proper way to do this is with associations in the new
