On the Xpath front...
fully implementing xpath seems an unecessary burden, but partial
implementation has its issues.
The OGC allows xpath in the Filter specification, stating
"In order to handle property references in a consistent manner, a filter
expression processor must use the subset of
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Hum, in fact some datastores are creating JTS geometries and putting
> the CRS in the userData field. Sort of a hacky convention, I agree.
> Unless we get out an start using a ReferencedGeometry that makes it
> explicit (same as we did for Geometry).
I always thought of Geometr
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Good question; we focused on the "raw needs" of the data model here and
> did not add many helper methods - leaving those for SimpleFeature.
> I would like to say that List is the answer; but my reason is
> pretty weak ... if you have several Geometry objects in your
>
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>> Andrea Aime wrote:
>>> I understand. Yet I feel we lack a middle ground allowing to represent
>>> associations in an efficient way, the same way deegree did.
>> (In my benefit/complexity table this whole multiplicity thing is a
>> good tipping point
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Andrea Aime wrote:
>> I understand. Yet I feel we lack a middle ground allowing to represent
>> associations in an efficient way, the same way deegree did.
> (In my benefit/complexity table this whole multiplicity thing is a good
> tipping point)
>
> I still don't see w
Andrea Aime wrote:
> I understand. Yet I feel we lack a middle ground allowing to represent
> associations in an efficient way, the same way deegree did.
(In my benefit/complexity table this whole multiplicity thing is a good
tipping point)
I still don't see why it could not just be an implementa
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Andrea Aime wrote:
>> (18.32.12) aaime: Hum, it seem the feature model review triggered a
>> good chain reaction
>> (18.32.17) aaime: but Jody is missing from the mix, sigh
>> (18.32.34) aaime: I guess he's the only one willing to face the
>> data/metadata mix issue...
