[gdal-dev] Call for discussion on RFC 60: Improved round-tripping in OGR

[Sean Gillies]

Kurt, Even:

thanks for continuing the discussion. A couple of comments below.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Even Rouault <even.rouault at spatialys.com>
wrote:

> Hi Kurt,
>
> > Just gave RFC 60 a quick look.  In general, I think we absolutely need
> > this.  Some thoughts:
>
> thanks for the comments (by the way, anyone reading this mailing list is
> welcomed to comment not just PSC members)
>
> >
> > - There are users who need the old behavior.  We need an easy way to get
> > that.  I think the default should be the more functional RFC 60 way.  I
> see
> > the -noNativeData flag, so I think this is well covered.
> > - What is the likely performance impact +/-?
>
> Theoretically, as that adds some new code, there could be some potential
> impact since we are going to always store the nativeData when reading,
> even if
> discarding it later. Hard to quantify at that point. If that were going to
> be
> a real problem (but anyone wanting performance shouldn't use geojson to
> start
> with), we could have an open option in the geojson driver to request it
> not to
> populate nativeData.


> > - It would be nice to base a could use cases described in the RFC so we
> are
> > not totally counting on the links.  They don't have to be super detailed.
>
> OK
>

I'll be happy to round up a few extension datasets.


>
> > - Do we need to add anything to the JSON to flag which conversion method
> > was used?
>
> I don't understand what you mean here.
>

Kurt, do you mean that the output JSON would have a item indicating whether
it was a high fidelity or lossy translation of the input?

-- 
Sean Gillies
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20151014/9bb504ec/attachment.html>