[geotk] NullPointerException with WFSFeatureStore

johann sorel johann.sorel at geomatys.com
Wed Dec 10 04:33:09 PST 2014


When you have a FeatureStore you can use the method createSession().

The Session object has many more convenient methods including 
FeatureCollections.

Johann Sorel


On 10/12/2014 13:27, Emmanuel Blondel wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geotoolkit mailing list
> Geotoolkit at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geotoolkit

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geotoolkit/attachments/20141210/e0e9cda8/attachment.html>


More information about the Geotoolkit mailing list