On 10-05-25 9:41 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: > >> To me a feature collection should just be a convenience wrapper. >> Having a custom one for the purposes of rendering is a different >> story, don't know much about that use case. > > Afaik Jody is after the "toy daset in memory" case that many users > seem to be playing with, where the features either: > - do not come from a store > - come from a store but are cached in memory to speed up rendering > > I may be wrong, but ContentFeatureCollection requires something > like a real store to back it? Correct, the *plan* does not account for a pure memory feature collection. Although could this could possibly just be a ContentFeatureCollection wrapped around a FeatureStore from a MemoryDataStore?
Regardless, another implementation could be a pure in memory implementation, no store backing would be fine imo as long as it's explicit it is not backed by any sort of datastore. I thought we already had one of these in one of our 20 odd FC implementations... perhaps not. > > Cheers > Andrea > > > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
