[fdo-internals] FDO RFC 4 - Provider Support for ArcSDE 9.2

[Greg Boone]

Is it possible to have the PSC vote on this issue via the 'internals'
email list? If so, I propose that RFC 4 be formally accepted by the PSC
and implemented.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Robert
Fortin
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 3:00 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 4 - Provider Support for ArcSDE 9.2

Frank,

There was also no change in the API but changes in some structure which
forced us to rebuild our code.

RF 

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:53 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 4 - Provider Support for ArcSDE 9.2

Yes, it is a little complex. However, the alternate solutions each offer
their own level of complexity and maintenance. 

The primary reason we had to proceed in this direction was because 

1) Our users required we support both SDKs
2) The names of the ArcSDE libraries changed between 91 and 92. 

If the ArcSDE team changes the library names in future releases then we
would have to re-evaluate those changes against the requirement that we
keep supporting 91, 92 9x, etc. 

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank
Warmerdam (External)
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2007 2:00 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 4 - Provider Support for ArcSDE 9.2

Greg Boone wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
>  
> 
> FDO RFC 4 - 'Provider Support for ArcSDE 9.2' has been created and 
> posted for review to: http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc4
> 
>  
> 
> All comments and feedback are welcome.

Greg,

This solution looks ok to me, though I wonder a bit at the complexity.
Will future versions of SDE result in additional variations, or is this
issue related to some particular change in the API between SDE 9.1 and
9.2?

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------
------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo,
http://osgeo.org

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals