[fdo-internals] New RFC posted

[Jason Birch]

No comments on technical implementation, but this RFC makes me happy :)
 
SQL Server?
 
What format is the attached .doc in?
 
It would be important to know exactly what behaviour is expected from
these functions; would it be possible to add their signatures, examples,
and expected results to the RFC?  For instance, I'd like to see better
documentation of the differences between Mod and Remainder.  If they are
envisioned as functions of the same name from a particular RDBMS or
programming language, then a reference to the documentation for that
source would be good.  It would also allow us to determine if there are
any functions which might require modified signatures to support
additional information that might be required to implemented the
functions in other providers (such as PostGIS).
 
Jason
 
________________________________

From: Thomas Knoell
Subject: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted



A new RFC (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc8) has been posted. The
RFC addresses the enhancement of the FDO well known (expression)
function list to include additional, commonly used functions.

 

Please review the RFC. Any comments/suggestions and questions are
welcome. All feedback is expected by the end-of-day August 10th 2007. If
no changes are required it is my intent to motion that a vote for the
acceptance of the RFC be made and subsequently voted on by the PSC.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20070803/2d575a5b/attachment.html