It would greatly aid GeoServer users if shapefile DataStore represented a directory of shapefiles, rather than a single shapefile. Individual shapefiles in the directory could be served up as FeatureTypes of the DataStore.
As example of how to implemented this see the DataStore tutorial.
The current setup does work. This is just an earnest wish - I may even have asked for this before.
CodeHaus Comment From: - Time: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 05:13:09 -0600
Uhm... at first I was against it, but yes, seeing how geoserver
works, and also considering that usually people stick all of
the shapefile used in a project in a single folder, I support
this suggestiong too.
CodeHaus Comment From: ianschneider - Time: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:31:37 -0600
Given that other uses of Shapefile will be different I say Geoserver should adapt to the need, rather than force a change on everyone else.
In a mapping tool environment (or other), the ability to view each Shapefile as an individual unit (composed of three or more files) is key for supporting manipulation of the units (deleting, creating, editing) and coexistence of the unit with other units. Think a folder node in a gui which contains shapefiles and other data which is of interest to the user.
I argue that a shapefile is an atomic unit and that other application views should be constructed as needed, allowing for maximum flexability without imposing outside needs on the basic functionality.
To create a folder based shapefile for Geoserver, create a DataStore which uses a folder, whether URL or local, and manage the individual shapefiles internally. If any pieces of ShapefileDataStore need to be refactored for better mileage with this endeavor, I would be happy to put in the work.
CodeHaus Comment From: jgarnett - Time: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 14:42:19 -0600
You may be right Ians,
I suppose the right way to do this sort of thing would be to have that abstract FileDataStore we talked about on irc way back when. And the have a DirectoryDataStore that attempts to pair up directory contents to specific DataStores? Maybe recognizes by extension rather than by a Param Map/Bean?
CodeHaus Comment From: ianschneider - Time: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:54:55 -0600
I suppose we can always reopen this issue, but for now, it seemed wrapped up. Perhaps it should lead to a new issue?