[fdo-dev] Classes and properties in SHP providers

Haris Kurtagic haris at sl-king.com
Wed Nov 1 12:24:27 EST 2006


But, also in nature or in writing multiplatform code one is expecting
some minimum of capabilities.
It seem like now we can write an FDO provider which returns NULL for
everything and not supporting any capability, do we call that FDO
provider ?

Of course on the other hand we don't want too many restrictions, we do
want to be able to write specific capabilities.
I don't want to be philosophical but as for every other thing true is
somewhere in between.

I like FDO interface, I like FDO architecture,  I thing it is very
understandable, straight forward and I didn't have any problems writing
a provider for Oracle for it from scratch.

Right now I am missing some definition of minimum level of
functionality.

I think that could become important when FDO becomes wider use interface
and when we would have different FDO clients trying to use and move data
across different providers.

Haris
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Stoica [mailto:dan.stoica at autodesk.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:17 PM
To: dev at fdo.osgeo.org
Subject: RE: [fdo-dev] Classes and properties in SHP providers


> Currently, I've not discovered any better way of development of FDO
generic utils than checking for capabilities and react properly.

Checking the capabilities is a natural approach. It's just like writing
multi-platform code.

Dan.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mateusz Loskot [mailto:mateusz at loskot.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:09 AM
To: dev at fdo.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [fdo-dev] Classes and properties in SHP providers

Haris Kurtagic wrote:
> I don't agree, I think every provider should implement data store 
> command.
> In any case it can say: I am ok and ready to use that data store
>
> I would not prefer using OS commands.
> I think is much better to stay with FDO interface as much as possible,

> to be as much generic.

Generally, I'd agree but as I know from Robert Bray, data store commands
are not mandatory to implement by a provider.

> I would not like writing FDO client with bunch of "if that provider "

Currently, I've not discovered any better way of development of FDO
generic utils than checking for capabilities and react properly.

Cheers
--
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe at fdo.osgeo.org For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help at fdo.osgeo.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe at fdo.osgeo.org For additional
commands, e-mail: dev-help at fdo.osgeo.org





More information about the Fdo-internals mailing list