[postgis-devel] [raster] Paths local to server

[Sandro Santilli]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:12:12PM -0800, Bborie Park wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
> > On 28 February 2013 21:01, Bborie Park <dustymugs at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:

> True, "flawed" might be a bit harsh.  Incomplete would be a better
> word choice.  We need to do away with the entire in-db and out-db
> notion and just return the pixel values.

Guys, I don't care about the terms you use, don't waste time with
that. Feel free to hit me as hard as you can :)

That said, the RFC2 was born to really describe the internal binary format.
If you read it under that light it should be consistent.

I suggest writing another RFC for the real transport format.
For example, the "Offline/Online" flag wouldn't be needed there.

Also check if there's space for a version (both in RFC2 and the subsequent)
as it will be important to have one.

--strk; 

 http://www.cartodb.com - Map, analyze and build applications with your data

                                       ~~ http://strk.keybit.net