<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div>I agree that putting it in core is the best, but I have no problem respecting if you don't want it there either. </div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Thanks</div>
<div><br />
</div>
<div>Nicklas</div>
<div><br />
<br />
2013-06-17 Sandro Santilli wrote:<br />
<br />
+1 to threat TWKB as core --strk;<br />
><br />
>On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 09:44:37PM -0400, Paragon Corporation wrote:<br />
>> <br />
>> Nicklas,<br />
>> <br />
>> If everyone is okay with just accepting your TWKB when we branch 2.2 I'm not<br />
>> even sure its worth the effort gong thru the hassle of making it an<br />
>> extension.<br />
>> <br />
>> To me your TWKB falls in boat with raster/sfcgal (but really more with the<br />
>> other input/output functions). While it may make sense to make it an<br />
>> extension, it makes even less sense as an extension (compared to<br />
>> raster/sfcgal) because you are not adding <br />
>> Any additional dependencies, AND you will need to be in line with liblwgeom,<br />
>> and you've only got a couple of functions.<br />
>> <br />
>> pgRouting doesn't even rely on compiling against any PostGIS headers and<br />
>> just uses the PostGIS public SQL api so its not a model for you unless you<br />
>> want to rewrite everything to be less efficient. <br />
>> <br />
>> We are as Bborie said probably a year away from releasing 2.2 at the rate<br />
>> that we move, so if you put it in 2.2. and for some reason we need to take<br />
>> it out before release, no big whoop.<br />
>> <br />
>> +1 from me for just treating it as part of core.<br />
>> <br />
>> Anyone else have an opinion.<br />
>> <br />
>> Thanks,<br />
>> Regina<br />
>> <br />
>> <br />
>> -----Original Message-----<br />
>> From: postgis-devel-bounces@lists.osgeo.org<br />
>> [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey<br />
>> Sent: Sunday, June 16, 2013 1:57 PM<br />
>> To: nicklas.aven@jordogskog.no; PostGIS Development Discussion<br />
>> Subject: Re: [postgis-devel] TWKB in PostGIS, what do you think?<br />
>> <br />
>> On Sunday, June 16, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Nicklas Avén wrote:<br />
>> > I ask because it was mentioned earlier today that when PostGIS <br />
>> > Schanges to cmake all dependencies also will. Is that because it is <br />
>> > convenient or necessary?<br />
>> <br />
>> That's a slight mis-reading. If we start building PostGIS with MSVC (driven<br />
>> by cmake) we'll have to build all the dependencies with MSVC too (driven by<br />
>> something or other). The whole point is to avoid mixing build tools over the<br />
>> entire software stack, to remove the niggly issues we've been seeing mixing<br />
>> MSVC components with Mingw components.<br />
>> <br />
>> P<br />
>_______________________________________________<br />
>postgis-devel mailing list<br />
>postgis-devel@lists.osgeo.org<br />
>http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/postgis-devel<br />
><br />
>
</div>
</body>
</html>