<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>Thanks all for the discussion around Geopackages, SpatiaLite, etc.</p>
<p>Not sure if the PSC can help here?</p>
<p>To me it seems like many people would prefer that we invest into OGR to improve the Geopackage support - right? Isn't there consensus on that already?</p>
<p>So - it would be a matter of improving the geopackage support in OGR, so QGIS can profit from that.</p>
<p>Who would be a good developer to ask for this? Even? Or others? Which dev knows about OGR, Geopackage/SQlite and transaction group support?</p>
<p>Or would we need a small group of devs and/or other contributors to better specify what we need and then look for a suitable dev to implement our requirements?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Andreas</p>
<p>On 2018-02-27 22:29, Régis Haubourg wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Thanks Alessandro and Nyall, </div>
that said, it means that two reviewers are probably not found of having those PR integrated as is. Our community is based on consensus I think, Could we raise that topic up to the PSC level?</div>
Thoughts?</div>
Régis</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br />
<div class="gmail_quote">2018-02-27 22:05 GMT+01:00 Nyall Dawson <span><<a href="mailto:nyall.dawson@gmail.com">nyall.dawson@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br />
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">On 28 February 2018 at 06:40, Alessandro Pasotti <<a href="mailto:apasotti@gmail.com">apasotti@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br /> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Luigi Pirelli <<a href="mailto:luipir@gmail.com">luipir@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br /> >><br /> >> ><br /> >> > On 27/02/2018 11:12, Mark Johnson wrote:<br /> >> >>>> that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only.<br /> >> >><br /> >> >> With the 'current provider' I assume you mean the Spatialite-Provider.<br /> >> >><br /> >> >> Please remember that the Spatialite-Provider was never designed to<br /> >> >> support GeoPackage.<br /> >> >><br /> >> >> Please also remember that Gdal/Ogr does not support all aspects of<br /> >> >> Spatialite<br /> >> >> - writable SpatialViews are not supported<br /> >> >><br /> >> >> The present QgsOgrProvider does not support Spatialite-Tables with more<br /> >> >> than 1 geometry properly.<br /> >> ><br /> >> > Would it be possible to add these to the QgsOgrProvider, or are there<br /> >> > some limitations ?<br /> >><br /> >> Hi Hugo<br /> >><br /> >> Some technical opinion are available in related PR done by Mark to<br /> >> propose a new Spatialite provider.<br /> >> The general opinion is to check before if it make sense to remove<br /> >> spatialite limitations in the gdal provider to sqlite.<br /> >> There are also opinon that the PR is actually not so simple to review,<br /> >> for the complexity and extension. Oslandia can do it if apport more to<br /> >> his business.<br /> >><br /> >> IMHO I can't see any problem to merge it after review and have a new<br /> >> or parallel spatialite provicer.<br /> >><br /> ><br /> > Well, I do: I think that unless there is an overwhelming technical reason to<br /> > take a different route, QGIS should not create alternative providers where<br /> > OGR/GDAL can do the job.<br /> </div>
</div>
+1.<br /> <br /> I strongly believe it would be a dangerous mistake for the QGIS<br /> project to invest further development time and maintenance burden by<br /> extending the spatialite provider, and I've made that view clear on<br /> every discussion related to the spatialite provider over the 3.0<br /> development cycle.<br /> <span><br /> > The reason is both in how open source works: building wonderful applications<br /> > on top of wonderful libraries (GDAL/OGR in this case) and in how we should<br /> > avoid to enlarge the code base without a valid reason.<br /> ><br /> > The right approach in this particular case is IMHO to work with OGR/GDAL to<br /> > add the missing features in the base libraries or to improve the existing<br /> > QGIS providers if the problems is in them, this will prevent duplication and<br /> > lower the maintenance efforts on the shoulders of QGIS developers.<br /> <br /> </span>Alessandro has summed up my thoughts exactly.<br /> <span class="HOEnZb"><span style="color: #888888;"><br /> Nyall<br /> </span></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">______________________________<wbr />_________________<br /> QGIS-Developer mailing list<br /> <a href="mailto:QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org">QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br /> List info: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr />mailman/listinfo/qgis-<wbr />developer</a><br /> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr />mailman/listinfo/qgis-<wbr />developer</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">_______________________________________________<br /> QGIS-Developer mailing list<br /> <a href="mailto:QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org">QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br /> List info: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a><br /> Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer</a></div>
</blockquote>
<p><br /></p>
</body></html>