[gdal-dev] RFC 29: OGR Set Desired Fields

[Tamas Szekeres]

Martin,

I didn't follow all conclusions made earlier in this thread, but I don't
think it makes much sense to enable/disable the special fields since those
are derived from the attributes of the feature instead of fetching the
values physically from the data source. For example OGR_STYLE corresponds to
OGRFeature::GetStyleString() which can provide a meaningful value even if
the styles are not handled/supported by a particular driver.

Assuming we only deal with the physical attributes it seems to me more
reasonable to store a flag in OGRFieldDefn which could be set individually.
In this regard each driver would do something like:

for( int iField = 0; iField < poDefn->GetFieldCount(); iField++ )
{
  if (poDefn->GetFieldDefn(iField)->IsIgnored())
    continue;

  // fetch field
}



This would eliminate the requirement to maintain a separate array of the
ignored/desired fields.


Best regards,

Tamas




2010/7/29 Martin Dobias <wonder.sk at gmail.com>

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Martin Dobias <wonder.sk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > So, in case there will be no further comments, I'll update the RFC to
> > match the API you've proposed.
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> I've updated the RFC to reflect your suggestions:
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc29_desired_fields
>
> Given that there has been no further discussion, can we mark the RFC
> as proposed and start the voting?
>
> Regards
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> gdal-dev mailing list
> gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20100729/13035bab/attachment.html