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

Jason Birch Jason.Birch at nanaimo.ca
Sun Mar 23 18:36:43 EDT 2008

Oh, and in the embrace and extend track... is there a reason we couldn't use storage_type in preference to geometry_format, and extend it with two additional codes (2, 3 or maybe 9001, 9002) for FGF and WKT?

From: Jason Birch
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite

Any chance that I could convince you guys to use "geometry_type" (or something else) rather than "type" in the table definition?  Using a generic term like "type" is just bad karma from a database design standpoint...

If you did this, would you feel the need to go to the integer definition for this field and use the numeric codes in the spec?  And is there a strong reason for deviating from this, other than not supporting all of the types?


From: Traian Stanev
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 16 - FDO Provider for SQLite
Hi Frank,

No problem, feel free to post the file (it came from publically available data).
Since I sent you that file, I have also added support for the geometry_columns (and spatial_ref_sys) in my code. I had the same columns as you have in the RFC, except for the "type" column. I will adjust the code to support "type" as well.

More information about the fdo-internals mailing list