[Gvsig_english] QUESTION gvSIG 1.9 (BN 1253) -- Hoes does gvSIG reference shapefiles in ToC

[Francisco José Peñarrubia]

Hi Simon.

About 2.0 version, I'm not directly involved yet, so, I am not the best 
person to answer it, but probably it will solve this issue. Maybe next 
month I will start helping to 2.0, so I can give you better answers.
About 1.9 release and minor adjustments, we have been talked (before 
Christmats) about its "life". We decided to make an (oficial) 
announcement to people interested in collaborate with corrections and 
bugs fixing.
The announcement is not yet published, so forgive me if I say something 
wrong, but the idea is to let the people use this release, and be 
confident that they will be some more releases solving some of the bugs.
But the point is that all new development will be done in 2.0, and this 
bug fixing will be a "community effort". I mean, contributions from 
companies or individuals who may be interested in having something 
corrected in the official release (say for example, 1.9.1).

Please, note the difference because many of this kind of work we will do 
in 1.9 will be done in spare time by some of us... as people like you, 
Wolfgang, Ben and many others are doing with this list.

To finalize: Thanks to all of you, and specially (from my part) to the 
person who "set the clouds in movement" ;-)

Fran.

Simon Cropper (Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd) escribió:
> Fran,
>
> Your answer makes sense. Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Yes, I occasionally sleep but since you guys are awake in Spain when it 
> is night in Australia, if I need quick answers I need to regularly check 
> my email and reply to any queries promptly.
>
> As I have alluded to before, there are not many experienced gvSIG users 
> on this side of the globe so I am pushing hard to become familiar with 
> the program so I can use gvSIG in my normal working activities and maybe 
> help other along the way.
>
> You mentions Version 2; is it expected this problem will be solved in 
> this version or is it that the underlying architecture is changing and 
> minor adjustments to version 1.9 will be a waste of time?
>
> If version 2 will not fix the problem directly maybe a programmatic 
> solution would be to (a) check the project for other instances of the 
> file when requested to make changes and refuse permission to edit unless 
> these are removed, or (b) deactivate all other instances, release the 
> files and open the file to be edited exclusively; if you can't gain 
> exclusive access refuse access to the file. I presume Java can lock 
> files preventing others from using them, check if a file is already 
> locked, etc. Not true multi-user  solutions but at least prevents what 
> is common practice in other programs causing a system crash (with no 
> real clear idea why).
>
> Cheers Simon
>
> Simon Cropper
> Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd
> PO Box 160, Sunshine, Victoria 3020.
> P: 9311 5822. M: 041 830 3437.
> mailto: scropper at botanicusaustralia.com.au 
> <mailto:scropper at botanicusaustralia.com.au>
> web: www.botanicusaustralia.com.au <http://www.botanicusaustralia.com.au>
>
>
> On 12/01/2010 9:20 PM, Francisco José Peñarrubia wrote:
>   
>> Hi Simon.
>>
>> I'm wondering if you sleep some time.... ;-)
>>
>> I mean: to workarround the problem (yes, it can be seen as a bug), you
>> shouldn't edit a shape file (or another layer like PostGIS) if you have
>> more than one instance in your view (or in another view). Even I would
>> say if other person is reading this file, he will have problems.
>> gvSIG can edit, and is intended to use to that, but is not prepared
>> (yet) to be a concurrent editor.
>>
>> About adding fields and drivers autonomy.... It depends if the driver is
>> opening-reading-closing all the time, which is a time consuming task.
>> The driver may not read always the number of records, or use some
>> buffering that will not be synchronized with the other drivers. That's
>> why you will end with Java Heap crashes. Maybe the solution can be to
>> use the same driver object, but these things will change in 2.0 release,
>> so, I think we cannot dedicate more time to this issue. That's why I
>> suggested the workarround.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> PS: About concurrent modification and multi user editing, I have some
>> old ideas to develop, but honestly, I don't have time for now.
>>
>> Fran Peñarrubia
>> gvSIG Team
>>
>>
>> Simon Cropper (Botanicus Australia Pty Ltd) escribió:
>>