[fdo-internals] RE: FDO RFC 48 - Polygon Vertex Order is ready for review.

[Traian Stanev]

I guess it depends on your definition of "needs fixed". For most uses, like rendering and editing, the vertex order doesn't matter. For uses where it matters, the code already has to deal with both kinds of winding, so such report will be unnecessary. That's why I keep questioning the addition of this new capability -- it doesn't add useful information for FDO clients, due to already existing incorrect data which cannot be ignored.

Traian


-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Dave Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 11:22 AM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] RE: FDO RFC 48 - Polygon Vertex Order is ready for review.

Silly question if the existing data is bad don't we need some kind of report to identify what needs fixed or do we have a tool that lets the customer fix the problem polygons?

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Leaf Li
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 7:06 PM
To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: [fdo-internals] RE: FDO RFC 48 - Polygon Vertex Order is ready for review.

Thanks for your clarification. Yes. I think Oracle should be enforced too.

Thanks,
Leaf Li

>Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 06:00:07 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Crispin_at_1Spatial <crispin.hoult at 1spatial.com>
>Subject: [fdo-internals] RE: FDO RFC 48 - Polygon Vertex Order is
>	ready	for	review.
>To: fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>Message-ID: <1278939607633-5282779.post at n2.nabble.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>I think (clarification) that Oracle will indeed store SDO geometry with all
>sorts of geometric and validation errors (and FDO will retreive it).
>
>However, for spatial analysis to be carried out on the data the data must
>pass validation.  This means that the Oracle provider(s) sit somewhere
>between needing enforcement and not.
>
>I would like to think that FDO had the capability to ensure that geometry
>was valid for Oracle as other processes (apart from visualisation or
>bounding box filter) may be required to operate between individual
>geometries.
>-- 
>View this message in 
>context: >http://osgeo-org.1803224.n2.nabble.com/RE-FDO-RFC-48-Polygon-Vertex-Order-is-ready-for-review-tp5281359p5282779.html
>Sent from the FDO Internals mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals