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

[Robert Bray]

+1 (Bob)

Also I agree on the voting via mail list and the use of "Motion:". That 
is what we have adopted in MapGuide land...

Bob

Greg Boone wrote:
> 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,