[gdal-dev] Call for discusson on RFC 31 - OGR 64bit Integer Fields and FIDs

[Even Rouault]

Le mardi 27 janvier 2015 18:17:44, Daniel Morissette a écrit :
> Hi Even,
> 
> I like the RFC, and just like Dimitri I was wondering if instead of
> GetFID64(), GetFeatureCount64(), etc, we could not simply keep the
> current method names since 2.0 is the time to break the API anyway.

Hi Daniel,

Not sure if you saw my answer to Dmitriy as it ended up into a separate thread 
due to dumb email agent. Reposting it inline

"""Dmitriy, 

The main reason for the new symbol is that if we change the return type it 
might cause crashing problems that are not detected at compile time if GetFID 
is used in a printf like function. For example

printf("%ld %s", GetFID (), str)

Even
"""

I've taken that approach from Frank's initial draft and that seamed a valid 
concern. That said, if you guys think that changing the return type is better, 
I've no strong mind.

> 
> Also note that in the list of driver upgrades, you could add potential
> enhancement to the support for MITAB "TAB Seamless Tables" which had a
> potential FID overflow problem on very large tables with 32 bit ids. The
> driver would have caught and reported an error in this case, but that
> limitation can be solved with 64 bit ids if/when the code is upgraded to
> use them. Look for TABSeamless::EncodeFeatureId() and related methods in
> mitab_tabseamless.cpp.

OK thanks for the hint, I'll have a look at this. Do you have samples datasets 
that would trigger that issue ?

Even

> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 2015-01-24 8:07 AM, Dmitriy Baryshnikov wrote:
> > Hi Even,
> > 
> > The RFC looks good. One note. May be in GDAL 2 we can use GetFID instead
> > GetFID64? Because we can allow some incompatibility between GDAL 1.x and
> > GDAL 2.x.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> >      Dmitry
> > 
> > 23.01.2015 18:17, Even Rouault пишет:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> This is a call for discussion on revisiting the existing RFC 31 - OGR
> >> 64bit
> >> Integer Fields and FIDs, initiated by Frank in 2010 and that I've
> >> extended.
> >> 
> >> http://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/rfc31_ogr_64
> >> 
> >> Below the summary :
> >> """
> >> This RFC addresses steps to upgrade OGR to support 64bit integer
> >> fields and
> >> feature ids. Many feature data formats support wide integers, and the
> >> inability to transform these through OGR causes increasing numbers of
> >> problems.
> >> """
> >> 
> >> A first discussion took place at http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-
> >> dev/2010-November/thread.html#26883. My main remarks at that time were
> >> about
> >> compatibility issues, but as this would go in GDAL 2.0, they are
> >> likely less
> >> critical.
> >> 
> >> Even
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > gdal-dev mailing list
> > gdal-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev

-- 
Spatialys - Geospatial professional services
http://www.spatialys.com