<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:st="" 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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@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;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
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:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-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;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle23
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle24
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle26
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle27
{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;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:496192320;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-970279480 -410909050 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-text:"\(%1\)";
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</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-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='color:black'>By making Get/SetClassNames
pure virtual, do you plan to implement NOOP methods for all </span><span
lang=EN style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>non-RDBMS
based providers? Is there any reason to not make these methods non-pure virtual
with default NOOP implementation?</span><span lang=EN style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='color:black'>Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN style='color:black'>Steve.</span><span
style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ronnie Louie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 18, 2008 11:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>RFC 23 (<a
href="http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc23">http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc23</a>)
is updated once again to propose changes to DescribeSchema for allowing a hint
for restricting the classes in the returned schema. Completion of the
review for the RFC is still targeted for July 23. As usual, please reply
to this list with your comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ronnie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ronnie Louie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:47 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Traian’s suggestion offers
a cleaner solution and keeps the API compact. It’s quite similar to
the originally proposed DescribeSchema changes, but no errors or return values
are used to indicate support for retrieving specific classes. The command
will just work, returning only the requested class definitions, or all of them
depending on the provider’s implementation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>If there are no objections, I
will revise the RFC again with this solution. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>thanks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Ronnie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Traian
Stanev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:04 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'FDO Internals Mail List'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Yes, that was what I had in
mind. The function call setting the filenames as hints would never error
– in fact it can have a blank default implementation in FdoIDescribeSchema.
This way, only providers which want to optimize based on the hint would
overload that function and take into account that input. For all other
providers, DescribeSchema would work as before, without any code changes at all
– only a recompile of the provider would be needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Traian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Boone<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>I guess I am not totally against
the idea of the class names being used as a Hint. As long as there is no
exceptions thrown if a provider does not support the Hint or no return values
need be evaluated. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Greg<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Traian
Stanev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:10 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>OK I see. In that case, I’d
prefer the breaking change in DescribeSchema (where you can ask for specific
classes). It’s true that we have to update all providers, but IMO keeps
the API more compact. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>A crazy alternative would be to
add a function to the DescribeSchema command which lets someone specify feature
class names they are interested in. This can then be treated as a hint by the
providers which need that and other providers can ignore it and return the full
schema – either way the class that the caller cares about will be in the
returned schema. This way there would be no work required of provides that
don't need it, and there are no new commands or capabilities to add.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Traian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Brent
Robinson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:58 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Hi Traian,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>It would be the last case. The
RDBMS providers cache the schemas but the first time retrieval can be expensive
when there are many classes.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Brent. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Traian
Stanev<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>The impact on non-RDBMS
providers like SDF is a bit unclear to me. It seems like there are two cases.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>(1)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>FDO connection is
kept open. In such case DescribeSchema operation is free, since the schema is
cached internally by the connection.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoListParagraph style='text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span
style='color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>(2)<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>
</span></span></span><![endif]><span style='color:#1F497D'>FDO connection is
opened and then those new commands are executed – in this case the schema
would have to be deserialized, in its entirety, which would not make the new
commands perform any faster than DescribeSchema.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>It seems to me like making the
RDBMS providers cache their schema internally is something that would make the
extra commands unnecessary, and would only limit code changes to providers
which do have a problem with DescribeSchema, instead of having either all providers
implement new commands, or having client code have two code paths everywhere it
deals with getting a schema. However, I do not know enough about the RDBMS
providers to be sure if caching the schema is not possible in their case. Or
are we talking about the case where getting the schema even once, to cache it,
is too expensive (like if there are 1 million classes in Oracle)?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>Traian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jason Birch<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='color:#1F497D'>I like this approach,
though for consistency it would be nice if all of the providers implemented these
new commands as soon as possible. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='color:#1F497D'>From my perspective,
having to special case everything based on capabilities can get a bit
frustrating, especially for lowly scripters who barely understand how to tie
their shoes </span><span lang=EN-CA style='font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span
lang=EN-CA style='color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA style='color:#1F497D'>Jason<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA 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 style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Ronnie Louie<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 17, 2008 00:39<br>
<b>To:</b> FDO Internals Mail List<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [fdo-internals] Updated FDO RFC 23 For Review<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>RFC 23 (<a href="http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc23">http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc23</a>)
has been updated and re-posted for review. In particular, the
previously proposed changes to DescribeSchema have been dropped, and replaced
with a new DescribeClasses command. Also the API command names for
enumerating schemas and classes have been updated to GetSchemaNames and
GetClassNames.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Please review the new proposal and reply to this list by
July 23. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Thanks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Ronnie<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>