[fdo-internals] Re: FDO RFC 54 is ready for review.

[Zac Spitzer]

I agree, extending what is one of the standard libraries for
geospatial data access is a much better approach.

Tho for end users, especially those coming from a map info background,
seeing a MapInfo FDO provider in the list would be a nice thing to have.

Perhaps a mini wrapper around the FDO OGR provider or allowing FDO to
expose multiple supported formats as individual providers from a
single underlying
provider?

What advanced capabilities do mapinfo files have which would be lost via OGR?

Z

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Jackie Ng <jumpinjackie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd argue the non-technical case that MapInfo is an important enough
> geospatial data format that warrants its own dedicated provider, just like:
>
>  * SHP
>  * Oracle
>  * PostGIS
>  * SQLite
>
> Are all accessible via OGR, but have their own dedicated FDO providers due
> to their ubiquity and that the true FDO capabilities of these data formats
> are not lost in the transition from OGR.
>
> I'm not comfortable about maintaining a separate fork of MITAB though, as
> this RFC implies.
>
> - Jackie
> --
> View this message in context: http://osgeo-org.1803224.n2.nabble.com/FDO-RFC-54-is-ready-for-review-tp5673351p5676841.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
>



-- 
Zac Spitzer
Solution Architect / Director
Ennoble Consultancy Australia
http://www.ennoble.com.au
http://zacster.blogspot.com
+61 405 847 168