Re: [Geoserver-devel] WFS xml configurations

[Justin D. <jde...@op...>]

Hmmm... I think it would be simpler to just have GeoServer override the 
AbstractFeatureTypeBinding (I think it might already) and check the 
configuration directly to see if feature bounds should be output.

But if we think that having the option directly in GeoTools is worth the 
additional work then yeah. We could more or less do the same thing. 
Create a subclass of AbstractFeatureTypeBinding which does not output 
bounds. Would be trivial to implement. Then add a flag to 
GMLConfiguration, setFeatureBounding(). And then the flag could be 
checked during binding register and the appropriate binding set up.

An alternative would be to just throw the GMLConfiguration itself into 
the binding context, and have the AbstractFeatureTypeBinding take it as 
a constructor arg and check the flag directly. That might be the 
simplest solution of all in terms of amount of code.

-Justin

Andrea Aime wrote:
> Gabriel Roldán ha scritto:
>> On Friday 28 November 2008 14:42:47 Andrea Aime wrote:
>>> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>>>> Hi Gabriel,
>>>>
>>>> Its definitely doable, and we should do it. Right now in GeoServer a 
>>>> lot
>>>>   of "manual" work is done that the EMF based bindings in geotools also
>>>> do. The tough part is ensuring no regressions.
>>>>
>>>> But yeah, +1 on this.
>>> Afaik the configurations are also feeding some specific context
>>> parameteres for WFS bindings overrides to use (see for example
>>> my work at http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-1189).
>>>
>>> So a GeoServer configuration should extend from a GeoTools one?
>>
>> That seems like the right thing to do to me. Yet, in the specific case 
>> of featurebounding it may even be a desirable thing at the geotools 
>> level too?
> 
> Indeed it would. The issue is what to conjure up in order to make
> Pico container feed the proper information. Since it feeds object
> setters based on the class only, we cannot just add a boolean into
> the context, but we would have to wrap it somehow.
> Maybe a WFSEncodingOptions object, that for the moment contains
> only a boolean flag (or could contain two if we wanted to separate
> feature collection and feature bounds generation, like the
> GML2 translator does now).
> 
> Cheers
> Andrea
> 
> 


-- 
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.