[geotk] NullPointerException with WFSFeatureStore

[Emmanuel Blondel]

Thanks, but you confirm that they are only convenient methods, and that
there is no more "Featurecollection" (or similar) interface at GeoAPI
level, right?

2014-12-10 13:33 GMT+01:00 johann sorel <johann.sorel at geomatys.com>:

>  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 listGeotoolkit at lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geotoolkit
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141210/2c95ddd5/attachment-0001.html>