[fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support

[Traian Stanev]

I'm talking about the same enumeration. Just add more values to the existing one, while keeping the old ones in there.

enum FdoSpatialOperations
{
    FdoSpatialOperations_Contains,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Crosses,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Disjoint,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Equals,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Intersects,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Overlaps,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Touches,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Within,
    FdoSpatialOperations_CoveredBy,
    FdoSpatialOperations_Inside,
    FdoSpatialOperations_EnvelopeIntersects,

    FdoSpatialOperations_Relate = 0x100,
    FdoSpatialOperations_RelateContains   = 0x200,
    FdoSpatialOperations_RelateCrosses    = 0x400,
    FdoSpatialOperations_RelateDisjoint   = 0x800,
    FdoSpatialOperations_RelateEquals     = 0x1000,
   etc....
};

Anyway, this was just a suggestion in case people want to keep full backward binary compatibility of the existing enumeration. I already voted +1 for the RFC, and I still support it as is.


Traian

________________________________________
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica [dan.stoica at autodesk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:03 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator     combinations    support

Interesting idea, but I didn't want to create a new enumeration since people are already used with the existing one and it would look quite redundant. Reminded me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor...

Cheers,
Dan.


-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:28 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support


If we want to be *really* backwards compatible, we could reserve the old values to have the same meanings as now, and allocate the new enumeration values starting at 0x100, 0x200 and so on in the same enumeration.

This way it is unambiguous -- if the value is 255 or less, it is one of the existing spatial operations. If it is more than that, then it is a new bitmasked spatial operation.

Traian

________________________________________
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica [dan.stoica at autodesk.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:48 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator     combinations    support

As Traian said, “people will have to recompile their programs anyway”

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:41 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support

What about applications other than MapGuide?

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:24 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support

Thanks, Traian, you saved me an email ☺

Dan.

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:20 PM
To: 'FDO Internals Mail List'
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support


Well, I checked the MG codebase, and there is already such conversion function between the Mapguide and the FDO enumeration (see s_FdoSpatialOperation map), so it should not be a problem for MapGuide either.

Traian


From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:04 PM
To: 'FDO Internals Mail List'
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support


I guess since FDO API compatibility is already broken for 3.5 versus 3.4, it’s ok to make the change, with the knowledge that people will have to recompile their programs anyway.

However, I remember that MapGuide has a mirror of this enumeration that it uses in its API and then casts to FDO enumerated values directly. So I assume that there will need to be at least a change in MapGuide to add a function that does the conversion now, since the values no longer match. Might be worth searching the MapGuide API code for MgFeatureSpatialOperations.

Traian


From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:45 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support

What about API functional compatibility?

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:35 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support

The backward compatibility is already broken…

Thanks,
Dan.

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:15 PM
To: 'FDO Internals Mail List'
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support

+1 Traian

I assume that renumbering the existing FdoSpatialOperations enumeration was considered OK in terms of backward compatibility?


From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Orest Halustchak
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:03 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support

Hi,

There haven’t been any more comments on FDO RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support.

http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc39

I would like to motion for a vote on this RFC.

+1 from me.

Thanks,
Orest.