Hi Ben, Gabriel is probably better equipped to answer these questions but I will give it a shot.
Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote: > I have been working on GS 1.6.x / GT 2.4.x, and have tangled with a few > GML3 binding overrides required to get community-schemas to work as > expected for GeoSciML Testbed 3. > > At some stage, community-schemas will need to be ported to the trunks of > GS and GT. I am trying to understand how much this process will be > helped by the changes to the feature/attribute model introduced in trunk > (by Gabriel Roldán?). > > (1) Are binding overrides principally necessary because of the wrapping > required to support complex features in GS 1.6.x / GT 2.4.x? The binding overrides are mostly necessary due to the fact the current gml bindings on trunk assume a flat simple model. I believe the bindings that Gabriel implemented removed this restriction. > > (2) If so, does this mean that the new feature model will remove the > need for (most) binding overrides? Not sure... we could follow two approaches here: 1) Only have one set of gml bindings that handle complex and simple content. 2) Have two sets of bindings, 1 set for simple, 1 set for complex. > > (3) Will the GML3 bindings be regenerated for the new feature/attribute > model? (I am an EMF ignoramus.) > If we went with option 2 and broke out separate bindings for complex yes it would make sense to regenerate them. > Kind regards, > -- Justin Deoliveira The Open Planning Project [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list Geotools-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
