Le mercredi 18 décembre 2013 06:28:16, Paul Ramsey a écrit :
> I don't think we should expose the ISO geometry types to the world,
> they're just for WKB really, so I'll keep that part hidden away. It's
> a shame we can't get rid of the 25d type variants for gdal2... if not
> then, when?
Ah, I didn't perceive you wanted to go that far. Well, that's certainly
something that could be done for a GDAL 2. It would require a RFC to draw the
battle plan and analyze the impacts.
>
> Incidentally, is there going to be a GDAL 1.11?
Technically, at that point, no breaking changes have been done in trunk, so
1.11 would make sense as a version number.
Even
>
> P.
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Even Rouault
>
> <even.roua...@mines-paris.org> wrote:
> > Le mardi 17 décembre 2013 22:38:26, Paul Ramsey a écrit :
> >> OK, so hide the ISO types from the outside world. No problem.
> >>
> >> Is it OK to have getGeometryType and exportToWkb accept wkbVariant
> >> optional parameters?
> >
> > For exportToWkb(), it is just a matter of taste whether to add an
> > optional parameter or to have a dedicated method.
> >
> > For getGeometryType(), as it returns a OGRwkbGeometryType, you can't add
> > an optional parameter to return values other than OGRwkbGeometryType. My
> > latest proposal was to have a - protected - "int
> > getGeometryType(wkbVariant) { return
> > (eVariant == wkbVariantOgc) ? getGeometryType() :
> > getIsoGeometryType(); }" and a public OGRwkbIsoGeometryType
> > getIsoGeometryType().
> >
> >> P.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Even Rouault
> >>
> >> <even.roua...@mines-paris.org> wrote:
> >> > Selon Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>:
> >> >> Back to this, is it OK?
> >> >
> >> > As said in
> >> > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2013-December/037738.html, I
> >> > feel a bit unconfortable with the extension of the OGRwkbGeometryType
> >> > enumeration that has possible impacts on other parts of OGR. There's
> >> > perhaps a time where we will touch it, but I'd expect it to ideally
> >> > embrace Z, M, ZM, circular geometries at once. And that would deserve
> >> > a RFC.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think of keeping it an internal enumeration of OGR, since
> >> > that's probably all you need for now ?
> >> >
> >> > "Or have a separate OGRwkbIsoGeometryType enumeration { wkbPointIso,
> >> > ... wkbGeometryCollectionIso, wkbPointIsoZ, ...
> >> > wkbGeometryCollectionIsoZ }, a getIsoGeometryType() method that
> >> > returns it, and the exportToWkb() methods that calls int
> >> > getGeometryType(OGRwkbVariant eVariant) { return (eVariant ==
> >> > wkbVariantOgc) ? getGeometryType() : getIsoGeometryType(); }"
> >> >
> >> > I'd be happy to hear about other GDAL developers opinion on this.
> >> >
> >> >> How are we patching back to SVN? I can convert
> >> >> it into a patch and attach to a ticket, if that's the path.
> >> >
> >> > git-svn can be used to bridge the 2 worlds, but in my recent
> >> > experience it has been painful to use. So generating a patch and
> >> > applying it is probably easier.
> >> >
> >> > Even
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Geospatial professional services
> >> > http://even.rouault.free.fr/services.html
> >
> > --
> > Geospatial professional services
> > http://even.rouault.free.fr/services.html
--
Geospatial professional services
http://even.rouault.free.fr/services.html
_______________________________________________
gdal-dev mailing list
gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
