[fdo-users] PostGIS : new feature class naming proposition

Jason Birch Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca
Tue Feb 12 13:22:29 EST 2008

Hi Bruno,

I'd suggest moving this conversation to the FDO-internals list, as it is
supposed to be more focussed on core development.

I can't think of any draw-backs to this approach.  Are there any cases
where a feature class becomes disassociated from its connection and you
have to work your way backwards?  Or you would need to access a
different schema from that connection?  I'm thinking probably not...

I'm thinking that not having the schema name in the feature class will
potentially make transferring feature classes from one schema or
database to another easier (using Fdo2Fdo or something similar).


-----Original Message-----
From: Bruno Scott
Subject: [fdo-users] PostGIS : new feature class naming proposition

We are actively debugging the postgis provider.
And i have a proposal for the featureclass name

Actually , on the connection string we specify the datastore.
As this datastore is phycally the schema name so there is no need to
it in the featureclass name

So i suggest to get rid of this schema name but to keep backward

So if someone use an fdo function having a featureclass name as an input
both "schema~table" or "table" will work

but if we ask the provider to give us the list of featureclass name
it will only return "table"

Is that ok?


More information about the fdo-users mailing list