[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.
Guys,
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