[postgis-devel] Geom/Geog Hack Plan
havard.tveite at umb.no
Tue Nov 3 05:28:57 PST 2009
nicklas.aven at jordogskog.no wrote:
> Just a question for my understanding.
> What's the argument against a special prefix in function-name for those
One possible argument:
One should not introduce a separate name for a function that
is just a hack for the proper function. One could consider
introducing a separate name for such a function if it would
be interesting to use the function its own right once the
proper function is fully implemented and in place.
Less functions to document and maintain.
> If the argument is that we then can implement the "real" function in a
> micro-release, I don't think it is a good argument.
> Exchanging the hacked version with the real will cause a changed
> behavior of the function and is probably not what users expect from a
> micro-release, from the policy not to change functionality in
> 2009-11-03 Paragon Corporation wrote:
> Paul and Kevin,
> >I'm in agreement with Mark too. I suppose one or 2 of these functions is
> >not going to pollute our 1.5 that much.
> >So how about this as a plan:
> >Paul picks 1 or 2 more of these kind of functions. Note we already have
> >buffer -- which is now documented. Though not sure if the documentation is
> >clear enough -
> >http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ST_Buffer.html (and I
> >we need to revise our documentation template yet again -- though I'll put
> >that in a separate note).
> >The rest of the functions get put in a wiki page and prominently
> linked from
> >the documentation
> > in geography index
> >as well as geography description page
> > for easy access
> >Is everyone okay with that plan?
More information about the postgis-devel