[fdo-internals] RFC 20 for review

[Haris Kurtagic]

I think this is much more complicated way of exposing capabilities
rather than like it says in RFC simplifying.

 

I am not sure about motivation for it. For example If application is
build with newer version of FDO core I would think that older provider
will not be used anyhow .

I can't see reasons when application which is build for use with one
version of FDO libraries will use older providers. 

Also Isn't it going to be a problem when application is linked with one
version of FDO core libraries and provider is like build with another.
With current dll naming it is not possible I think ?

 

I couldn't find in RFC error handling for case when function of wrong
type of capability is executed for existing capability ( e.g. Call
GetBooleanCapability for Int32 ) ?

 

Haris

 

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Knoell
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 11:38 PM
To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [fdo-internals] RFC 20 for review

 

Hi,

 

RFC 20 (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc20) has been posted. It
proposes a simplification of the FDO capability interfaces. Please
review the RFC and let me know of any questions and suggestions you may
have. The review deadline is set for end of day July 18th.  It is
intended to request a vote on the RFC afterwards.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20080709/ec3daf2d/attachment.html