Re: [Geotools-devel] Proposal: partial 3d data handling

[Andrea A. <aa...@op...>]

Simone Giannecchini ha scritto:
>> The main reason to have a 3d envelope class is to be able
>> and return the 3d envelope of 3d data sets as well.
>> As an alternative I guess I could sublcass ReferencedEnvelope,
>> but that would create even more confusion...
> 
> 
>  It would probably make sense. Would it add a lot of load on you shoulders?

Simone,
the whole point of the proposal, as is, is that you can safely ignore
the extra ordinates if you don't want/don't know how to use them.
Unless you pass down the FEATURE_2D hits to a 3d enabled data store
with 3d coordiantes stored in it, you'll get CoordinateSequence with
3 or more ordinates.
Yet, if you don't care or don't know, you won't even notice.

With ReferencedEnvelope it should be the same, if you don't know/don't
care about the extra ordinates, you simply do not see them.
My suggestion above was a joke, as making a subclass would not change
anything, code that does not know will keep on just reading the
basic two dimensions, code that does care will take advantage of
the extra ordinates.
The difference having a subclass around will just be that the
code that cares will be riddled with instanceof checks.

Can you better qualify how having extra ordinates (mind, it might
not be a Z, it might be a M) is going to create problems?

Cheers
Andrea

-- 
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.