[fdo-internals] RFC Reminder

[Thomas Knoell]

Hi Jason

 

I defined the function types based on what those functions were referred
to. In a FDO context, this may not have been the correct classification.
I have no problem with re-wording this and classify the area and length
functions as math (or any other suggestion the discussion results in)
rather than intrinsic functions. I don't think aggregate will work as
those are functions that operate on a single object rather than a set of
objects.

 

FDO can give a provider information about the supported functions via
the FDO interface 

FdoIExpressionCapabilities::GetWellKnownFunctions().  So, theoretically,
a provider can check what is already supported and depending on the
outcome add additional, provider specific functions. However, I am not
sure if you want to call this a function registry.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:31 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] RFC Reminder

 

I'm wondering if it might make sense to put spatial functions into their
own category, rather than lumping them into intrinsic.  Actually I'm not
entirely sure what an intrinsic function means in this context, maybe
it's the same as spatial :)  Hmm.  I guess this doesn't make all that
much sense either though, as there are spatial aggregate functions and
spatial conversion functions.

 

This isn't related to the RFC, but is there some kind of function
registry in FDO?  I'm wondering what the potential is for providers to
expose provider-specific functions that do the same thing but are named
differently?

 

Jason

 

  _____  

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Knoell
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 08:13
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] RFC Reminder

Hi everyone

 

As indicated in an e-mail dated July 17th, FDO RFC 5
(http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc5) had been posted and is ready
for review. Please complete the review of the RFC and comment on it by
end-of-day Tuesday, July 31st. If no changes are required, it is my
intent to motion that a vote for the acceptance of RFC5 be made and
subsequently voted on by the PSC. 

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20070727/3b36bc99/attachment.html