Awesome. Thanks for elaborating.
Sanjiv
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>
> On Aug 6, 4:09 pm, Sanjiv Singh wrote:
>> > Also the GeometryDDL and Geometry classes could use some refactoring
>> > to support extensibility of adding new dialects. Probably via a
>> > registry that
On Aug 6, 4:09 pm, Sanjiv Singh wrote:
> > Also the GeometryDDL and Geometry classes could use some refactoring
> > to support extensibility of adding new dialects. Probably via a
> > registry that maps dialects to their geometry implementations. Also,
> > the GeometryDDL doesn't account for the
Hi Ants,
Thanks for the valuable feedback.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Ants Aasma wrote:
>
> I don't have a lot of experience with geodatabases so I can't evaluate
> this from a practical perspective, but I do have a couple of thoughts
> about the general design.
>
> I'm not too keen on havi
I don't have a lot of experience with geodatabases so I can't evaluate
this from a practical perspective, but I do have a couple of thoughts
about the general design.
I'm not too keen on having the geometry functions as methods on the
comparator. Having them there creates a namespace collision ha
