[fdo-internals] RFC 23 for Review

Tom Fukushima tom.fukushima at autodesk.com
Thu Jul 10 13:50:44 EDT 2008

Hi Kenneth,

Good point on the OGR provider.  We should remove the reference to file-based providers since it is incorrect.

Currently, the implementation of these APIs are optional so we could do the problematic providers. Are you saying that we should make these APIs mandatory so that all provider writers now have to implement this?


From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:42 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] RFC 23 for Review

I disagree with your views that file-based providers do not have this problem.
Some of our customers have a folder with many tables.
This folder is accessed through the OGR provider.

The customers usually require that the folder is placed on network storage.
Enumerating and evaluating all files can cause significant delays.

I suggest that the RFC is updated to include all FDO providers.

Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S

Ronnie Louie skrev:

RFC 23 (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc23) has been posted.  This RFC proposes APIs for retrieving feature class information without having to perform a full DescribeSchema.  The main benefit will be improved performance in applications connecting to RDBMS datasources.  Please review the proposal and reply to this list with your comments by July 15, 2008.




fdo-internals mailing list

fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20080710/b2841430/attachment.html

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list