<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#1F497D;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-CA link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I have to say that this was also my initial impression of the
RFC, and to some extent the RDBMS vs file distinction in RFC23. They
serve to reduce the homogeneity of FDO, which in turn makes building
applications based on FDO more difficult.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I am concerned that this mechanism could be used to add new
capabilities to individual providers without considering whether these
capabilities would be better in a more generic form, or how applying them to a
single provider could affect other providers in the future. If this does
go through, it would be important to make it clear that adding a new capability
to a provider would not be excluded from the RFC process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The more divergent the individual providers become, the less
easy it is to write an application that works with all providers. Reducing
the cost of maintaining the core library at a consistent level results in this
cost being passed along exponentially to all clients that have to manage
inconsistencies between the providers. I understand that there is
some pain keeping the providers in sync, but that’s the price of an
abstract framework. Maybe this is not a good way of looking at it, but my
feeling is that ff certain providers can’t be upgraded with new
functionality, then they will just get left behind until the community
recognises the need to upgrade them to the latest version of FDO and applies
resources to get them caught up.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>In my view, new capabilities should only be added when they are
absolutely required and after serious consideration. In some ways, this
cost is a good thing, as it slows the rate of change in the framework.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Jason<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Haris Kurtagic<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 09, 2008 11:53<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] RFC 20 for review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Hi Tomass,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>thanks for answers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I am very uncomfortable with this RFC. Perhaps I don’t
understand it well enough so I will ask many questions and try to understand
motivation for it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>In your previous answer you said that motivation is to not
rebuild FDO and providers because of one provider change. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think I understand your answer and motivation as it is written
in RFC but my concern was that doing that is not right thing. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>My main concern is that this RFC goes against one of the key
values of FDO: access different spatial data formats with one unified
interface.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think unified and clear access to different data stores is far
more important than “fast” adding of new capability for one
particular provider.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I see this RFC as a path to start to write applications which
are tied to particular providers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I would like to understand use case of it and would try to ask
with example.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>If I see it correctly use case of this would be that we have
application build against let say FDO 3.4. Then we would like to add new
capability to e.g. SDF provider and then use that new capability in new build
of application with same “old” FDO 3.4 but with new version of
provider .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Does this implies that we could have different flavors of FDO
3.4 or it would be 3.4.1 but just no need to add capability to other providers?
We would say it is FDO 3.4.1 because one provider have new capability ?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think FDO capabilities “belongs” to FDO not to
providers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>As of discussion about new capabilities enumerators not coded
anywhere or use of strings. I also feel like it is wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>How we would share those enumerations or strings between providers
? It could end up that because some new capability is not supported in all
providers at same time that it will have different number in different
providers ? Having some list (or few of them) of codes for capabilities sounds
very odd too me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>As of error handling: same result (</span><span lang=EN-US>"isUnknown"
to true</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'> ) would be for non existing capability as well as for wrong
type of it ?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Again sounds like we could end up with different type reported
from different providers for same capability.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>When writing FDO client application It would be wrong if we
would need to check at different lists to find codes for same capability and to
check it against all providers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>You mentioned : “</span><span lang=EN-US>certain unique
mechanism in place to avoid duplication”. This is yet to decide ?</span><span
lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Sorry if I am little hard or long but this RFC seems very
important to me.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Haris<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Thomas
Knoell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, July 09, 2008 7:20 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] RFC 20 for review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US>Hi Harris,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US>Thanks for the
comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US>As for the
motivation, currently there is no way to add a new capability to FDO without
the need to implement that new capability in all providers that want to use the
updated FDO code base. The new interface concept provides the chance to
actually do this as capabilities can be added without changing FDO. As a
result, only the provider that wants to support the new capability needs to
implement the support.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US>As for the
error handling, this is documented in RFC 20. If a user calls a function - for
example GetBooleanCapability for a capability that returns an Int32 - the
function would set the flag "isUnknown" to true. It is up to the
caller to check this flag an react accordingly. For example, the caller could
either use a default value that is appropriate in this case or throw an
exception. But this is all up to the caller.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='text-autospace:none'><span lang=EN-US> Thomas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Haris
Kurtagic<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:45 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] RFC 20 for review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think this is much more complicated way of exposing
capabilities rather than like it says in RFC simplifying.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I am not sure about motivation for it. For example If
application is build with newer version of FDO core I would think that older
provider will not be used anyhow .<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I can’t see reasons when application which is build for
use with one version of FDO libraries will use older providers. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Also Isn’t it going to be a problem when application is
linked with one version of FDO core libraries and provider is like build with
another. With current dll naming it is not possible I think ?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I couldn’t find in RFC error handling for case when
function of wrong type of capability is executed for existing capability ( e.g.
Call </span><span lang=EN style='color:black'>GetBooleanCapability for Int32 )
?</span><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Haris<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Thomas
Knoell<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> fdo-internals@lists.osgeo.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [fdo-internals] RFC 20 for review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Hi,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>RFC 20 (<a
href="http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc20">http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc20</a>)
has been posted. It proposes a simplification of the FDO capability interfaces.
Please review the RFC and let me know of any questions and suggestions you may have.
The review deadline is set for end of day July 18<sup>th. </sup> It is
intended to request a vote on the RFC afterwards.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US> Thomas<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>