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

[Frank Warmerdam]

Leaf Li wrote:
> I agree that getting the MITAB changes reviewed and submitted back to the originating SVN depot sounds is a good idea. Actually it is my original idea when I tried to implement MapInfo Provider. However, I changed my idea later. The major reason is that MITAB is based on OGR model. Actually MITAB is just one of OGR driver. In order to make MapInfo FDO provider support more powerful, I have to extend OGR model. Some of changes are as follows.
> 
> 1. We need to extend OGR geometry and data type. Currently OGR supports the following geometry types and data types only. However, MapInfo and FDO supports more. For example, both MapInfo and FDO support curve string, curve polygon, multiple curve polygon, Boolean, decimal, small integer data type. Adding supports for those new geometry type and data type isn't just to add some new enum values. It will result in lots of OGR API changes. Moreover, how to handle ORG drivers? 
...
> There are some such kind of API changes. I can't remember all of them.
> 
> If MapInfo provider includes MITBA library directly, I can modify OGR interface freely and don't need to think about other OGR drivers. So finally I give up my original idea.
> 
> Hope my explanation helps.

I believe I understand the explanation.

Thanks,
-- 
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
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