[fdo-users] new King.SpatiaLite FDO Provider

[Jason Birch]

There are a few differences as I understand it, and Haris can probably
expand further.

First, yes, the SpatiaLite binary format is different from FGF, and
cannot be read or written by the SQLite provider (which I believe can
also read WKB/WKT).  SpatiaLite added a "Virtual FDO" mode and
associated functions to read FDO-style SQLite, but I haven't tested
recently and it may no longer work with recent changes to the FDO
SQLite provider.

Second, the simple features metadata constructs (geometry columns,
coordinate systems) are slightly different between the two formats and
incompatible.

Third, Spatialite uses a built-in RTree-based spatial index, while the
existing provider uses a different indexing mechanism.

Finally, all of the spatial functionality of the existing provider
uses custom FDO code. The SpatiaLite provider uses SpatiaLite-native
functionality, and complex spatial queries can be passed through as
SQL.

Both providers have merit; the main benefits of the SpatiaLite
provider are that it gives full interchange capabilities with the
other implementers of SpatiaLite, which seems to be catching on well
in the open source community, and that you have full spatial database
capabilities in a file-based format.

Jason


On 2010-09-01, Crispin_at_1Spatial <crispin.hoult at 1spatial.com> wrote:
>
> Haris,
>
> Can you say how this is different from the implementation of the OSGeo
> SQLite provider?
>
> Is the FGF storage different to the Spatialite binary making the datasets
> not sharable?
>
>  - thanks
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://osgeo-org.1803224.n2.nabble.com/new-King-SpatiaLite-FDO-Provider-tp5480448p5485900.html
> Sent from the FDO Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-users mailing list
> fdo-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-users
>