Re: [Geotools-devel] FIDMapper issues

[Jody G. <jga...@re...>]

Andrea Aime wrote: 
>> Yeah going from a published fid to a raw one was never the intention; 
>> I understand that thing may of changed for the GMLObjectId method; so 
>> we probably need to look again - and possibly revisit our FeatureId 
>> policy.
> Sorry Jody, but it was intention all the way, how do you encode a FID 
> filter otherwise?
Fid filter is sent to a specific published FeatureType right? The fact 
that another FeatureType that is also published (perhaps a view of the 
same data?) has the same FeatureId is not always a problem?

But yeah it makes sense to me that everyone ignored the OGC General 
Model and started using FeatureId in this way ...
>>> What about adding a method like "canDecode(String FID)" and then 
>>> have the code in getPKAttribute throw an exception if the decode is 
>>> not possible?
>>>   
>> I think that may be needed; in order to support a true GMLObjectId 
>> method that did not assume anything about the internal structure of 
>> the FeatureID....
> As I said, this is implied already by the base WFS spec (and we're 
> failing to support it fully if you have two feature types with the 
> same name in different namespaces, at least in GeoServer).
Cool; so we need to revisit FeatureId definition in GeoTools; the target 
has changed since the OGC General Model and the days of WFS 1.0.

Jody