[gdal-dev] RFC 48: Geographical networks support

[Imran Rajjad]

Will this be available for java bindings too?
On Sep 9, 2014 12:53 AM, "Even Rouault" <even.rouault at spatialys.com> wrote:

>
> > - gnm/frmts/gnm_frmts.h :  I'm a bit concerned about exposing (installed
> >
> > > header + CPL_DLL) an interface that has not yet been implemented. My
> > > intuition
> > > is that it might change once the first one or two implementations have
> > > been made. So maybe keep it internal/experimental for now.
> >
> > I agree that the inclusion of the interfaces/capabilities that can be
> (not
> > will be) extended in future is not a 100% good idea. I hoped that someone
> > will be interested or even I will have time to implement and extend
> > something of what I wrote at the "Future ideas" section in my RFC. But we
> > do not know exactly will it be implemented or not. So: (1) We can remove
> > for now all these interfaces "for future", which means to leave only
> > GNMGdalNetwork and one analysing class. (2) Try to implement these
> > capabilities: pgRouting for gnm_frmts.h and for example
> > GNMGdalStdRoutingAnalyser with some algorithm extension (K shortest
> path).
>
> It's your call. Depend on how much time you have to implement that, but we
> might go with the current state, if we clearly mark
> experimental/unstabilized
> interfaces as such. Either by "hiding" them, or by documentation if not
> possible.
>
> > - GNMManager::CreateConnectivity () : I'm confused by the 'native' term.
> In
> >
> > > this method, native=false seems to imply the GDAL "proprietary" network
> > > format
> > > that can work with any vector driver that has similar capabilities than
> > > shapefile. Whereas in the RFC text, it seems to imply the contrary (
> > > "network
> > > of ”GDAL-native” format").
> >
> > Maybe I used it not correctly everywhere, but the general idea is the
> > following: The term "native" corresponds to the existed network formats
> (so
> > when we work with pgRouting network we work with its native tables and
> > fields, rather than with GNMGdal- system layers), while the GDAL-networks
> > are not "native" and more likely "common".
> >
>
> Yes, that would be good if the language could be consistent among the code
> and
> the RFC text. From your explanation, it seems that the text in the RFC
> should
> be corrected. Yes GDAL-network is more a "common" or "generic" network
> implementation.
>
> --
> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
> http://www.spatialys.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140909/17e5b853/attachment-0001.html>