[Gdal-dev] RFC 10: OGR Open Parameters

Frank Warmerdam warmerdam at pobox.com
Thu Mar 15 12:41:33 EDT 2007

Andrey Kiselev wrote:
> Daniel,
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 11:36:11AM -0400, Daniel Morissette wrote:
>> If no third party drivers exist then perhaps backwards compatibility
>> is a non-issue, but your RFC refers to third party drivers, so I
>> assume that you meant by that that some do exist. That's why I asked
>> for a number... to estimate the impact of breaking backwards
>> compatibility.
> Compatibility issues should be mentioned because we need to be informed
> of the number of issues introduced by the proposed changes. Independent
> driver authors may express their opinions on the subject, otherwisse we
> may consider that there are no objections against proposed breakage.


I am aware of at least 2-3 private OGR drivers.

 > So I am calling for feedback on above problem: is there anyone, who is
 > interested in keeping the OGRSFDriver::*Open() interface untouched?
 > Note, that binary interface will be broken in any case.

I am interested in the backward compatibility approach, but I am not sure
my interest is justified.

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    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org

More information about the Gdal-dev mailing list