[geos-devel] Exposing Precision model through C-API

[Varun Saraf]

Hi,

I guess it would be ideal to implement the tracking and we should give it a
shot. I think it will be worth the effort. To just document the problem and
leave it at that would be easier and we can always consider this later on
if need be. Can you tell me more about these internal geometries? Other
geometries can be tracked like you pointed out but what about these.

Regards,
Varun Saraf


On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Sandro Santilli <strk at keybit.net> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 07:57:49PM +0530, Varun Saraf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently, how is a GeometryFactory deleted and under what circumstances
> is
> > the finishGEOS function called? Given a GeometryFactory needs to stay
> alive
> > as long as any geometry that has been constructed with that factory. How
> > can we be sure that no geometry is still active which was created using
> > this GeometryFactory?
>
> The finishGEOS_r function is supposedly called when the user is no longer
> willing to use a specific "context". The finishGEOS function is supposedly
> called when the user is no longer willing to use the library, until next
> call to initGEOS. That's how they are documented.
>
> One way to track created geometries would be putting them in a list on
> creation and dropping them off the list when destructed (there's a C-API
> endpoint for deleting them). But some geometries are created "internally",
> as the result of operations. Those geometries would be harder to get on
> that list.
>
> Would such tracking list be worth it ? Or better to just document the
> problem and let the user be able to shoot their feet ?
>
> --strk;
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geos-devel/attachments/20140307/70b8533d/attachment.html>