[postgis-devel] Geom/Geog Hack Plan

[Paragon Corporation]

Yap that's my thinking.  For this scenario, I can't really think of anyone
preferring the less accurate answer when/if the more accurate is available.
So code would be easier to migrate if people didn't need to change function
names to use the new and improved.  Plus I'm lazy.  its easier to add a
proto to an existing function in the docs than a whole new function :)

Thanks,
Regina

 

-----Original Message-----
From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net
[mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Havard
Tveite
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 8:29 AM
To: PostGIS Development Discussion
Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] Geom/Geog Hack Plan

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 functions.

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.

Håvard

> 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 
> micro-releases.
>  
> /Nicklas
> 
> 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 
> think  >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  
> >http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ch08.html#PostGIS_Geo
> graphyF
>  >unctions
>  >
>  >as well as geography description page  >  > for easy access  
> >http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ch04.html#PostGIS_Geo
> graphy
>  >
>  >Is everyone okay with that plan?
>  >
>  >Thanks,
>  >Regina
_______________________________________________
postgis-devel mailing list
postgis-devel at postgis.refractions.net
http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel