[geotk] NullPointerException with WFSFeatureStore

[Emmanuel Blondel]

Thanks Martin , it would be great yes. Let me know if something new 
appears in snapshot, i will further test with a geoserver WFS instance.

Related to the use of WFS geotk client, i would have a question about 
the way how data can be retrieved:
- I see there is a FeatureReader, that acts as iterator if i'm not wrong.
- However, nothing to get a feature collection object; looking to GeoAPI 
in parallel, i've realized that the GeoAPI is not handling anymore a 
FeatureCollection interface, which was available in previous (old) 
versions of GeoAPI. Apparently i'm very late :-/ !.
I thought we had in GeoAPI a single interface for representing the data 
retrieved for a WFS featureType (what we are actually looking for in our 
project), but it seems it belongs to the past, and the highest 
representation is the Feature.
Do you confirm that?

Thanks again
Emmanuel

Le 10/12/2014 09:11, Martin Desruisseaux a écrit :
> Le 10/12/14 17:05, emmanuel.blondel1 at gmail.com a écrit :
>> Ok for a snapshot, i will argue here on the fact we should use first a snapshot until M3 is available, it shouldn't be a problem.
> Thanks
>
>> Some questions:
>> - Is it reasonable to make this timeout hardcoded in geotk? Isn't there a way to specify this timeout threshold as client param..?
> Yes it should be a parameter. I'm not familiar with the way
> WFSFeatureStore uses optional parameters. If I find an obvious place
> where to put it, I will do. Otherwise a static constant and a "TODO"
> note gives an opportunity to revisit this question by someone more
> familiar. There is a danger that a "TODO" note is forgot for a long
> time, but it should be no longer than until the code is ported to SIS
> (since we try to resolve pending issue in this process).
>
>> - if it is only a time 'warning', ie not an exception, why should i have a null getcapabilities? I would expect a result anyway.
> I agree, this is why I proposed alternatives in my previous email. I
> would prefer an exception to be thrown, and Johann seems to agree. Would
> it be okay for you?
>
>>   - in case it's'considered as failure, i should have a timeout exception (but it supposes that i can specify the timeout, otherwise it would be very restrictive and will not work for large GetCapabilities docs)
> Yes I agree for the TimeoutException. I will try to find a place for the
> timeout parameter.
>
>      Martin
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geotoolkit/attachments/20141210/36c02483/attachment.html>