Re: [Geotools-devel] Any plans dropping deprecated CQL syntax for 'ID IN'?

On 15-12-15 19:44, Jody Garnett wrote: > Reading the page ... > > Deprecated Syntax > > ::= [ "NOT" ] "IN" "(" {"," } ")" > ::= > > New Syntax (since 2.7.rc1) > > ::= [ "NOT" ] "IN" "(" {"," } ")" > ::= | > > Am I missing something? It looks like the new syntax

Re: [Geotools-devel] Any plans dropping deprecated CQL syntax for 'ID IN'?

Reading the page ... Deprecated Syntax ::= [ "NOT" ] "IN" "(" {"," } ")" ::= New Syntax (since 2.7.rc1) ::= [ "NOT" ] "IN" "(" {"," } ")" ::= | Am I missing something? It looks like the new syntax just allows integers or character strings? -- Jody Garnett On 15

Re: [Geotools-devel] Any plans dropping deprecated CQL syntax for 'ID IN'?

yes; I think it would cause some grief. I'm not pushing for this but having one syntax flagged as something one should not use doesn't really make much sense to me if there are no ill side-effects nor plans to drop it. Mark 2015-12-15 12:27 GMT+01:00 Andrea Aime :

[Geotools-devel] Any plans dropping deprecated CQL syntax for 'ID IN'?

Out of curiosity (and because I'm running into some trouble having tables with an id column that's not the primary key) what is the plan (if any) for dropping the deprecated "id in" syntax from CQL? (So that "id" will be handled as an ordinary attribute) >From the docs [1] it seems that it was

Re: [Geotools-devel] Any plans dropping deprecated CQL syntax for 'ID IN'?

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Mark Prins wrote: > yes; I think it would cause some grief. I'm not pushing for this but > having one syntax flagged as something one should not use doesn't really > make much sense to me if there are no ill side-effects nor plans to drop