<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:46:35 +0200<br><div>> From: even.rouault@mines-paris.org<br>> To: mateusz@loskot.net<br>> CC: lucena_ivan@hotmail.com; even.rouault@mines-paris.org; gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org<br>> Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] RFC 46 GDAL/OGR unification adopted and commited<br>> <br>> Selon Mateusz <mateusz@loskot.net>:<br>> <br>> I'd rather see frmts/mixed/XXXXX if XXXXX is a single driver that can return<br>> both raster and vector content.<br>> If you have a XXXXX (GeoRaster) and YYYYYY (OGR OCI) drivers that use common<br>> code but remain separate, I'd say you can have frmts/raster/XXXXX and<br>> frmts/vector/YYYYY and make one of them include headers from the other one. Like<br><br>That is fine. That will be just a matter of adding some -I include path.<br><br>> it has been done up to now. Well if you want it to be cleaner, you could have<br>> frmts/common/oracle and put in there the common code. However, if they are<br>> plugins and not build-in driver, you should however make sure that both drivers<br>> are bundled in the same shared object.<br><br>I don't think that will be necessary. I mean, the /common folder.<br><br>But let me through another idea, if you don't mind. <br><br>What if the folder under /frmts where organized by software/company name, not by container? <br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Would that be too much freedom? Would make it more organized or messier?<br><br>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.<br><br>My best regards,<br><br>Ivan<br><br><br>> <br>> <br>> > On 27 May 2014 01:24, Ivan Lucena <lucena_ivan@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > > What I am most interested is to have two driver<br>> > > (that uses the same data container) sharing a little bit of code.<br>> > > [...]<br>> > > In my case I would like to have a folder structure to keep my two driver<br>> > > under the same folder.<br>> > ><br>> > > Something like that:<br>> > ><br>> > > /frmts/container/<br>> > > /frmts/container/vector<br>> > > /frmts/container/raster<br>> > ><br>> > > But that idea doesn't help with your concern about a large number of<br>> > > sub-folders under /frmts.<br>> ><br>> > Ivan,<br>> ><br>> > You've touched an important issues - sharing of code between drivers that<br>> > connect to the same data provider.<br>> ><br>> > My understanding is that drivers like Oracle or PostGIS would have the<br>> > following structure:<br>> ><br>> > /frmts/mixed/oracle<br>> > /frmts/mixed/postgis<br>> ><br>> > I'm not sure if I've grasped the idea well though.<br>> ><br>> > Best regards,<br>> > --<br>> > Mateusz Łoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net<br>> ><br></div> </div></body>
</html>