[fdo-internals] Dropping off PSC

[Frank Warmerdam]

Greg Boone wrote:
> Hi Daniel, Frank,
> 
> Is it possible for one or both of you to take a look at the MITAB changes
> that Leaf and Aleck made, and offer guidance on how we can move towards
> having the proposed changes, or a variation of the changes, integrated into
> the MITAB trunk?
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/groundnut/
> 
> If you can outline what has been done vs. what needs to be done, and propose
> ideas on how to get from here to there, we can determine if the community
> can find the resourcing required to make up the delta.

Greg,

Well, this isn't the most convenient form for us to analyze.  I'll leave
MITAB to Daniel.  Skimming through the revision set and examining the
text I was able to identify the following revisions for adding new field
types.

   http://code.google.com/p/groundnut/source/detail?r=126
   http://code.google.com/p/groundnut/source/detail?r=125

The goal seems to be to add many specific field types for different sizes
of integer, and floating point value.  I fundamentally disagree with this
change, and prefer to let the width and precision values act as clues
with regard to field size.  So, I am doubtful such changes could make it
into GDAL/OGR without an override of my vote on the PSC.

Boolean is the one case that I would be more accepting of, though I am
also dubious about the value of treating this as other than an integer.

On the other hand, it might make sense to provide some sort of additional
hints mechanisms around attribute fields in OGR for applications that
really want to know details about the fields - like FDO.  Alternatively
this might be an area where an FDO Mapinfo provider would "go around OGR"
to make a direct MITAB call to get details, or provide them during field
creation.

I presume somewhere there are changes related to new geometry types for
curves but it after scanning 380 revision texts I was unable to identify
them.

The normal procedure would be for the person needing new features to
write an RFC describing what they need, why, how it will be accomplished
and what issues they foresee.  I realize this is a substantial process
and that with the provider already in existance the chances of there
being resources to pursue the various changes via a the consensus process
will be small.

PS. It is clear Leaf has done some really great work, and plumbed deep
depths in MITAB and OGR.  I would love to harness him as a contributor!

Best regards,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent