Right - changes to ContentFeatureStore, see GEOT-3586 just submitted
with patch. When that's fixed, I'll commit the CSV changes.
Thanks,
Lee
On 5/15/2011 4:10 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
If it is a change to one of the core classes we need to make a Jira +
patch.
If it is just a change to CSVFea
If it is a change to one of the core classes we need to make a Jira + patch.
If it is just a change to CSVFeatureWriter then you can commit directly?
--
Jody Garnett
On Monday, 16 May 2011 at 8:45 AM, lee-verizon wrote:
> The javadoc in FeatureWriter:
>
> * After aquiring a feature using nex
The javadoc in FeatureWriter:
* After aquiring a feature using next() you may call remove() or after
* modification write(). If you do not call one of these two methods
before
* calling hasNext(), or next() for that matter, the feature will be left
* unmodified.
So yeah, I think we should
I think I agree with that; my understanding is it is either write() or
remove()? But really we better check the javadocs - as I have known to be wrong
:-)
--
Jody Garnett
On Saturday, 14 May 2011 at 12:19 AM, lee-verizon wrote:
> Moving on to remove... I think there really is a bug in
> Con
Moving on to remove... I think there really is a bug in
ContentFeatureStore>removeFeatures(). The main loop looks like this:
while( writer.hasNext() ) {
writer.next();
writer.remove();
writer.write();
}
I think that last wr
I thought of another way to do it that confines the fix to
CSVFeatureWriter and does not involve any changes to
FilteringFeatureWriter. Much cleaner, IMO.
Still need to do remove and add...
Lee
On 5/12/2011 8:59 AM, lee-verizon wrote:
> ok, I came up with something that seems to work - in
> F
ok, I came up with something that seems to work - in
FilteringFeatureWriter>hasNext(), it is doing this:
SimpleFeature peek;
while (writer.hasNext()) {
peek = writer.next();
if (filter.evaluate(peek)) {
next = peek;
ret
On 5/11/2011 7:36 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 12 May 2011 at 10:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I forgot to mention that I already did put in the
>> FilteringFeatureWriter and it works fine. Perhaps too fine.
> ? so that part works ?
Yes, worked first time. It deli
On Thursday, 12 May 2011 at 10:30 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I already did put in the FilteringFeatureWriter
and it works fine. Perhaps too fine.
>
? so that part works ?
> Or maybe it just needs more work. I like the idea of chaining together
> vario
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I already did put in the FilteringFeatureWriter
and it works fine. Perhaps too fine. Or maybe it just needs more work. I like
the idea of chaining together various wrapped writers, but I just don't see how
the current set of them can work.
Can we chat sometime o
10 matches
Mail list logo
