Yes, definitely that would be cool. This would be equivalent to a
defining a view in an RDBMS.
Michaël Michaud wrote:
> Sounds good,
>
> And what about having a way to join a spatial layer in OJ to a
> non-spatial db table or view, and to see the whole result as one flat
> layer in OJ...
>
> m
Sounds good,
And what about having a way to join a spatial layer in OJ to a
non-spatial db table or view, and to see the whole result as one flat
layer in OJ...
my two cents
Michaël
P.Rizzi Ag.Mobilità Ambiente a écrit :
>Support for non-spatial DB tables would be a _great_ thing!!!
>You can
All good points, Paolo.
P.Rizzi Ag.Mobilità Ambiente wrote:
> Support for non-spatial DB tables would be a _great_ thing!!!
> You can do lots of thing with them (use attributes to theming other layers),
> or you can even create geometries on the fly using some of their attributes
> plus some Bea
Support for non-spatial DB tables would be a _great_ thing!!!
You can do lots of thing with them (use attributes to theming other layers),
or you can even create geometries on the fly using some of their attributes
plus some BeanShell code, for example.
Or they can be used to edit geometric layers
