[fdo-internals] New RFC10 Is Posted
traian.stanev at autodesk.com
Tue Sep 11 10:24:26 EDT 2007
> This is clearly an aspect of FDO I don't understand. I do not
> what override apis are or how it is possible to call custom c++
> from a particular provider when we don't even install include files
> them (to the best of my knowledge). I guess this "provider specific
> APIs" stuff is seems foreign to me because I have always tried hard
> to avoid it in GDAL/OGR.
The WMS override headers are there together with the FDO header, so in
theory they are there. However, I do agree with you that having API
specific to providers goes against the abstraction that is FDO. It makes
the client code have to special case providers, which automatically
reduces the value of the FDO API abstraction.
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 10:17 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] New RFC10 Is Posted
Maggie Yang wrote:
> Hi, Frank
> I understand your consideration. We will support more image formats
> which are widely-used by WMS server in the future. But this time, we
> mainly focusing on the additional parameters, still limiting the image
> format to the most common used type in order to make sure the quality,
> because it will increase the QA work load to test all possible image
> format in such short time.
OK, well I can live with this of course, but it is seems like an unusual
line of thinking in an open source project. It might be nice if at
least there was some documentation somewhere on what code people would
need to remove/alter to enable other formats.
I can almost imagine some providers building differently depending on
whether they are going into Autodesk commercial builds vs. open
source builds. For the commercial builds you might want to ensure
(by restriction) a high level of safety and bullet proofness while
for open source builds we generally take a more user-beware approach
to such features.
Nevertheless, RFC 10 as it stands is fine with me.
> The user can access LayerDefintion, ClassDefintion,
> PhysicalSchemaMapping and etc via WMS Override API, which is published
> API. For example, user can create the physical mapping via those API.
This is clearly an aspect of FDO I don't understand. I do not
what override apis are or how it is possible to call custom c++ methods
from a particular provider when we don't even install include files for
them (to the best of my knowledge). I guess this "provider specific
APIs" stuff is seems foreign to me because I have always tried hard
to avoid it in GDAL/OGR.
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,
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the fdo-internals