[fdo-internals] RE: Motion: Vote on FDO RFC 41: Fetch Size

[Greg Boone]

+1
Greg


From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Haris Kurtagic
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 4:24 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] RE: Motion: Vote on FDO RFC 41: Fetch Size

+1 Haris

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 19:31
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] RE: Motion: Vote on FDO RFC 41: Fetch Size

+1 Traian

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 10:08 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] Motion: Vote on FDO RFC 41: Fetch Size

Hi all,

There were no further comments on RFC 41: http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc41 - Fetch Size.

I would like to motion a vote to accept this RFC.

Thanks,
Greg.


From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Orest Halustchak
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 8:34 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] RE: FDO RFC 41 is updated.

Hi Leaf,

Thanks for updating the RFC: http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc41

Yes, we've hit some cases where we'd like to change fetch sizes from the application for performance reasons, depending on particular queries. Providers where this isn't relevant can ignore these and other providers can be updated as needed. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks,
Orest.

From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Leaf Li
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 9:07 PM
To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [fdo-internals] FDO RFC 41 is updated.

All,


I just update provider implementation portion of FDO RFC 41 according to Traian's feedback. Can you review it?

The old version:
SQLite will be enhanced to support it. Empty implementation will be added for other providers.

The new version:
Initially, we need this for our Autodesk providers and applications. An empty default implementation will be added so that this change will not materially affect other providers and does not entail work for people other than Autodesk. Other provider developers can add it and use it as needed.


Thanks,
Leaf Li
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/fdo-internals/attachments/20090910/8e9e11c8/attachment-0001.html