[gdal-dev] RFC 46 GDAL/OGR unification adopted and commited

[Ivan Lucena]

> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:46:35 +0200
> From: even.rouault at mines-paris.org
> To: mateusz at loskot.net
> CC: lucena_ivan at hotmail.com; even.rouault at mines-paris.org; gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] RFC 46 GDAL/OGR unification adopted and commited
> 
> Selon Mateusz  <mateusz at loskot.net>:
> 
> I'd rather see frmts/mixed/XXXXX if XXXXX is a single driver that can return
> both raster and vector content.
> If you have a XXXXX (GeoRaster) and YYYYYY (OGR OCI) drivers that use common
> code but remain separate, I'd say you can have frmts/raster/XXXXX and
> frmts/vector/YYYYY and make one of them include headers from the other one. Like

That is fine. That will be just a matter of adding some -I include path.

> it has been done up to now. Well if you want it to be cleaner, you could have
> frmts/common/oracle and put in there the common code. However, if they are
> plugins and not build-in driver, you should however make sure that both drivers
> are bundled in the same shared object.

I don't think that will be necessary. I mean, the /common folder.

But let me through another idea, if you don't mind. 

What if the folder under /frmts where organized by software/company name, not by container? 

BTW, that is what I did on my first GDAL driver, I used the software name not the format or driver name as the folder name.

IMHO there is no need for /vector, /raster or /mixed sub-folder. It really doesn't matter if a driver is mixed or not, in terms of folder structure. That should be dictated by the code.

Inside the software/company sub-folder, the developer could organize folder names in the anyway they want, as long as there is a main makefile to be called. Or maybe not even that, because a driver could be plugin-only. Inside that folder you could have one, two, three or more drivers, mixed or not. And we could still have formats independent from software/companies seating on the /frmts folder just like he have now.

Would that be too much freedom? Would make it more organized or messier?

Like I said before, I am fine with what you proposed. I am just giving some ideas. I am not concerned about "my two drivers" but about the health of the overall GDAL code.

My best regards,

Ivan


> 
> 
> > On 27 May 2014 01:24, Ivan Lucena <lucena_ivan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > What I am most interested is to have two driver
> > > (that uses the same data container) sharing a little bit of code.
> > > [...]
> > > In my case I would like to have a folder structure to keep my two driver
> > > under the same folder.
> > >
> > > Something like that:
> > >
> > > /frmts/container/
> > > /frmts/container/vector
> > > /frmts/container/raster
> > >
> > > But that idea doesn't help with your concern about a large number of
> > > sub-folders under /frmts.
> >
> > Ivan,
> >
> > You've touched an important issues - sharing of code between drivers that
> > connect to the same data provider.
> >
> > My understanding is that drivers like Oracle or PostGIS would have the
> > following structure:
> >
> > /frmts/mixed/oracle
> > /frmts/mixed/postgis
> >
> > I'm not sure if I've grasped the idea well though.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Mateusz  Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
> >
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20140527/afc9c905/attachment.html>