There's a fundamental problem with technology-specific introspection
to create interoperability contracts.
Basically, you are bound by the specific persistence platform _and_
your specific introspection mechanism (and whatever "modes" you wish
to complicate it with). So if you introspect for one
So I agree that we should allow property names that match to database column
names; or we need a way to encode/decode xml safe names folded into the jdbc
datastores?
I have not been able to think of a good way to fix the propertyPattern
provided; could we turn the problem around the other way a
Gak; interesting problem. It is almost like we need a "strict" mode and a as
you say a relaxed mode.
Jody
On 07/05/2010, at 11:59 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Hi,
> say one has a table or a view that contains charaters that are invalid
> xml tag wise, such as spaces. For example, "My name".
>
> Tha
Hi,
say one has a table or a view that contains charaters that are invalid
xml tag wise, such as spaces. For example, "My name".
That makes it impossible to use that layer for WFS purposes for sure,
but I've found that it makes it impossible to use the attribute for
other things as well. For examp
