[fdo-internals] RFC15 posted

Orest Halustchak orest.halustchak at autodesk.com
Mon Feb 11 11:16:25 EST 2008

Hi Maksim,

I principle, the idea looks good, but I agree with Frank in terms of the amount of detail that is needed.

One thing to consider is that the dictionary may be persisted in another class (e.g. another table in an rdbms). What about having this type of constraint reference a dictionary via another class rather than a list maintained just with the property that uses it? That way the dictionary could be referenced by more than one property and will allow more flexibility in defining and maintaining the dictionary?


-----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: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:49 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] RFC15 posted

Maksim Sestic wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> A  http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc15 FDO RFC15  has been posted. It's
> about introducing new PropertyValueConstraintDictionary class, so please
> give some feedback on this. Year ago I've been working on a concept similar
> to FDO's and this particular constraint type turned out valuable for most of
> users.


While I'm supportive of the general concept, I am not able to judge how
appropriate the approach is for FDO.

But, I do think that before we could go to a vote, the RFC would require
more exactness in terms of what is proposed - including a precise C++
definition of the proposed interfaces.

I think you also need to address backward compatability issues (if any)
and who will implement the proposed new feature.

Best regards,
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, http://osgeo.org

fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list