convert SDE table to polygon feature class with Arcobjects

Question

I figure there's a few ways to convert a table to polygon feature class, but what's the fatest and cleanest way to do it? My table has lat, long, azimuth, and beam width and based on all this info I can create polygons.

Couple of methods I am thinking of right now:

1. Could I just add an OID field and 'shape' field to my existing table and create polygons
2. Create an empty polygon fc, generate polygons and then copy all table rows to fc.

The problem is, I don't really want attribute redundancy by having data in both the table and polygon fc. Thanks!

• blah238: You won't be able to do an in-place conversion because a table is not a feature class (although a feature class has a table). But you could create an empty polygon feature class and use an insert cursor to populate it with the geometry and attributes you want. After that, it's up to you, but you could delete the original table and rename the polygon feature class to the name of the original table to effectively replace it.
• saim: Thanks for the tip! So now I have my empty polygon fc which contains the table fields and I added a polygon 'SHAPE' field. Now I am trying to populate the whole fc. I got the geometry in there and I previewed and it looks great but it has no significant attributes. I used polygonFeatureBuffer.Shape = pPolygon; polygonFeatureCursor.InsertFeature(polygonFeatureBuffer); to get the SHAPE field populated how do I also get the attributes in there? I don't want to use polygonFeatureBuffer.set_Value(int, value) because there's too many fields.

Answer 1

It seems to me if you have lat/longs for each vertex needed to create the polygon then you should be able to just use those to programmatically create the polygons using python and the geoprocessor api as seen here.. http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgiSDEsktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=Writing_geometries

• saim: your link didn't work but I found writing geometries for arcgis10. thanks for the tip. I know in many ways python is easier and faster but I would still like to do it in .NET...
• Justin: Don't know what happend but I fixed it.