[fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

[Greg Boone]

I agree. I would also prefer to see SDF maintained and promoted as the "official" FDO file format.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Badreddine Karoui
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:25 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

That's how the SDF provider started: it did simple things realy good and then it took 3 years to get where it is now. It would probably need a couple of development(not prototyping) weeks to get it to create SQLite data.

IMO. We are embarking on an other journey that will eventually create an other SDF provider. Except, that will be some X years down the road. And of course, create confusion around the FDO SDF file format.

I'd rather see SDF maintained and promoted as the "official" FDO file format.

Badreddine

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 2:02 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

Survival of the fittest? :)

This is a pretty common situation in open source development.  New
approaches are developed independently without the legacy constraints of
existing solutions, and if the approach is successful the existing
technology either adapts or is superseded.  This allows new ideas to be
explored without disrupting the current code base and requiring
maintenance of backwards-compatibility code for dead-end ideas.

I feel that requiring the simple RFC16 ideas to work within the SDF
framework would slow development and testing of this new approach, and
would require design compromises to meet the current needs of the SDF
provider.  I would be much happier to see the proposed provider put out
there, and the SDF provider react (or not) depending on its adoption.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Boone
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Vote: FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

Well, from my perspective, if we go with this new format then we are in
some manner making a statement that SDF is not sufficient and that this
new provider is intended to be developed as an eventual replacement.
Regardless of the intent right now, that will, in the end, be the
result.
_______________________________________________
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