[gdal-dev] RE: progressive rendering

[Frank Warmerdam]

Norman Barker wrote:
> Hi Adam, Tamas, Even, all
> 
> I have updated the RFC 
> 
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc24_progressive_data_support
> 
> And completely changed the pattern used to reflect the general consensus
> to use an asynchronous queue for communication between threads.
> 
> Can you comment on this, and let me know if it is acceptable?
> 
> Can we iterate this is a few times, and then how is this RFC approved
> (or rejected!)?

Norman,

The RFC would be approved or rejected after you (or someone) calls
for a vote by the PSC.  The voting would normally occur over 2 business
days and be done according to:

   http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc1_pmc

With regard to the proposal, I'm afraid I'm still not clear on exactly
what you are proposing.

Is GDALAsyncDataset a new class?  Are the methods like Open(),
and ProgressiveRasterIO() methods on this new class.  I don't
understand how this new class relates to GDALDataset.  How does one
know if the dataset you get back from GDALOpen() supports the
async interfaces or not?

I presume I'm getting lost in stuff that is supposed to be obvious,
but for my sake, I'd appreciate your nailing these aspects down fairly
carefully.  For instance, I'd like to see the actual C++ declarations for
all new methods and classes, not an abstract approximation without
argument types.  I'd also essentially like to see the reference docs for
the new methods.

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    | Geospatial Programmer for Rent