+1 nice work. I don't have a strong opinion on name as both make sense.
I guess I would lean toward "user provided" as well.
On 10-05-29 4:44 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Hi,
> following last week discussion I cooked up a formal proposal to allow
> GeoTools 2.6.x and trunk to use existing fids during
+1. I think this is necessary for effective use of WFS-T by
organisations who use primary keys with business meaning. Database
design best-practice is to avoid having primary keys with business
meaning, but as Andrea has noted, this practice is sufficiently
widespread to be supported by the WFS
On 30/05/2010, at 10:31 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Jody Garnett ha scritto:
>> I have added my +1 to the page.
>> The only thing I think could be added to this proposal is to not
>> allow null to be passed in when the request has been made to use an
>> existing feature ID? (Presuming of course that
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> I have added my +1 to the page.
>
> The only thing I think could be added to this proposal is to not
> allow null to be passed in when the request has been made to use an
> existing feature ID? (Presuming of course that wfs has the same
> meaning and error condition).
N
I have added my +1 to the page.
The only thing I think could be added to this proposal is to not allow null to
be passed in when the request has been made to use an existing feature ID?
(Presuming of course that wfs has the same meaning and error condition).
Thanks for the hard word andrea.
Jod
Hi Andrea,
+1 for the proposal.
I agree with Gabriel's point about "existing" possibly being confusing
(it put me on the wrong track before I read the detail) but perhaps
it's best to go with that usage if it's in the spec and rely on the
docs to clear up any ambiguity.
Michael
> Anyways, I don't feel strongly one way or the other,
yup, neither I do. To me both existing and provided might lead to the
same confusion, though I'm personally more inclined to provided from the
API pov, and at the same time recognize having the definition of
existing already "provided" by a
Gabriel Roldan ha scritto:
> Hi Andrea, this looks alright to me, including the patch.
> It's just that the term "existing feature id" strikes me to think the
> feature id exists somewhere else, when the actual purpose is to use the
> "user provided feature id"?
> What if we rephrase it so that i
Hi Andrea, this looks alright to me, including the patch.
It's just that the term "existing feature id" strikes me to think the
feature id exists somewhere else, when the actual purpose is to use the
"user provided feature id"?
What if we rephrase it so that isUseExisingFIDSupported becomes
isUs
Hi,
following last week discussion I cooked up a formal proposal to allow
GeoTools 2.6.x and trunk to use existing fids during feature insertion.
You can find it here:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Allow+inserts+to+use+existing+feature+ID
The proposal is open for voting
Cheers
Andrea
10 matches
Mail list logo
