I suspect you'll have to rename the file, at least I don't know of any other way.
Personally I've moved away completely from the Generic reader and now only use a TestFilter followed by a FeatureReader for each format that I'm supporting.
I find that a lot more flexible and easier to maintain (less guesswork), even though it does clutter the workspace a bit.
I suspect you'll have to rename the file, at least I don't know of any other way.
Personally I've moved away completely from the Generic reader and now only use a TestFilter followed by a FeatureReader for each format that I'm supporting.
I find that a lot more flexible and easier to maintain (less guesswork), even though it does clutter the workspace a bit.
Thanks David
I think I'll take your suggestion. It's a nice idea having one reader for all and does make for a less cluttered workspace but I've found the Generic Reader fiddly to work with too. I'd prefer not to change the extension anyway...I've never seen a geojson with a .geojson extension.
If you are using a featureReader set to the Generic format, if you go into the parameters, you change change the setting from <Guess format name from extension> to point to an attribute containing the name of the desired format.
I use it in a scenario where I can accept 15 different formats, and the testFilter/specific reader scenario was becoming cumbersome.
If you are using a featureReader set to the Generic format, if you go into the parameters, you change change the setting from <Guess format name from extension> to point to an attribute containing the name of the desired format.
I use it in a scenario where I can accept 15 different formats, and the testFilter/specific reader scenario was becoming cumbersome.
Great suggestion @jdh, I'll give it a try. Thanks.
There goes flexibility... I'm running into a strange message from the generic reader that interprets a .json file as CESIUM3DTILES, which is not what I want. @fmelizard?
