Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>>> Around in circles we go :-P FeatureReader is like an iterator
>>> that throws IOExceptions ... and users hated it.
>> Who besides James hated it? ;-)
>
> Not sure I was too shy at the time; I do remember hating explaining
> it to people repeatedly.
>>> SimpleFeatureReader reader = null; try { reader =
>>> dataStore.getFeatureReader( typeName, filter,
>>> Transaction.AUTO_COMMIT ); while( reader.hasNext() ){ try {
>>> SimpleFeature feature = reader.next(); } catch(
>>> IllegalArgumentException badData ){ // skipping this feature
>>> since it has invalid data } catch( IOException unexpected ){
>>> unexpected.printStackTrace(); break; // after an IOException the
>>> reader is "broken" }
>> Sorry, this looks retarded to me. How much code has to be so
>> permissive to skip over bad data? One try/catch is enough.
>
> In my experience a lot of it - but I guess it really depends on the
> quality of your data. When doing data work at refractions we usually
> found 10-20% to require cleaning. The more information we put into
> AttributeDescriptor the greater the chance an individual feature has
> of failing.
>
> One thing we can do is make any validation exceptions into an
> IOException of some sort? That would at least leave one exception to
> catch.
As far as I know today features do not validate themselves unless
you ask them to.
>>> Thinking... Given the amount of code that would break we would
>>> either need to reintroduce feature reader; or update
>>> featureiterator and call the result GeoTools 3.0 - as all feature
>>> reading code would be broken.... Here is another idea - would
>>> declaring a runtime exception as part of the method work? It
>>> would be honest about the possibility for error; and not break
>>> existing code - and for GeoTools3 we could make it a checked
>>> exception.
>> I guess it would be somewhat better. At least the small percentage
>> of users that does read the documentation would know exceptions can
>> happen...
>
> And what about the idea of making it an Exception for GeoTools 3?
> Does it hold any interest to you?
Not interest in making GeoTools 3 in the short term. Otherwise I think
it's a good idea
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the
lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo
_______________________________________________
Geotools-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
