[Geotools-devel] Re: FeatureType hacking ...

[David Z. <dav...@gm...>]

FeatureAttributeType extending ListAttributeType with the constraints
specified sounds like a good compromise. It also paints a consistent
road for the future should we want to revisit this in the future.

David

On 4/28/05, Jody Garnett <jga...@re...> wrote:
> David Zwiers wrote:
>=20
> >I recall it had something to do with multiplicity, but no in principle
> >it should be fine (note this adds a few method to FT). There may have
> >also been an issue with creating values again too (for example
> >defaults).
> >
> Understood :-) The one reason I asked rather than recommended...
>=20
> >One of my version did have FeatureType implementing
> >AttributeType. I liked the result, but ended up with duplicate methods
> >(and some inconsistencies with general xpath usage).
> >
> >
> We already have those if you think about the use that *excepts* clause
> in the origional FeatureType.
> There is so much overlap between FeatureType and ListAttributeType that
> something really should give.
>=20
> >Oh, and no it wasn't flattened ;) (hence some ofthe issues with
> >creation) ... flattening this would be very confusing to complex
> >feature users.
> >
> Well I now know how Chris felt; stuck between what is needed to go
> forward, and what is required for backwards compatability.
>=20
> The FeatureAttributeType does not look too bad and paints a consistent
> picture with respect to schema.
> I am willing to go with it unless you want to think about this some more.
>=20
> Another option is to make it a ListAttributeType <---
> FeatureAttributeType, and demand that all the list methods
> delegate to the FeatureType.
>=20
> Right now I am trying to get
> FeatureTypeBuilder/FeatureTypes/FeatureTypeFactory/DataUtilities under
> some kind of control.
>=20
> Jody
>=20
>