You're right -- that post was incomprehensible. I read it twice and
still wonder what it's all about. :)
But it's a good lesson to learn. And it happens to everyone. The
software is telling us "Please refactor me, even my interfaces or
fundamental design if you have to, because I'm getting overextended
trying to do things that weren't anticipated at my birth."
No one really wants interfaces to change, but fwiw, if GDAL 2.0 isn't
backwards-compatible with 1.x (but it means a better GDAL) then I for
one will have no complaints. If you gotta do what you gotta do, then by
all means do it, and I'm behind you 100%.
Ray
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
Folks,
Another GDAL related post on my blog related to the complexity and
fragility of some aspects of GDAL:
http://fwarmerdam.blogspot.com/2009/12/death-by-complexity.html
Best regards,
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
