[geos-devel] Proposals for ensuring correct semantics?

strk strk at keybit.net
Thu Dec 11 12:00:48 EST 2003

About the buffer semantics I don't think geos should behave differently
from JTS, we just tried to use it for debugging purposes. I'll change
it back to previous behaviour.


mbdavis wrote:
> Sandro's (sp?) buffer question points up a potential issue with ensuring that both JTS and GEOS continue to have identical semantics.  Any ideas for how to ensure this?
> We do have the JTS Test Suite, but I'm not sure how well it's implemented in GEOS.  Also, it's not complete for spatial functions, and it certainly doesn't address non-Geometry methods.
> We do have a set of JUnit tests for JTS; it might be worthwhile porting them to C++ and putting a framework in place to validate new builds of GEOS.
> One difficulty with validating output of constructive functions is that the output may be topologically correct but not quite identical, due to vagaries of implementation and floating point.  I don't have a great solution for this right now - it would be worth discussing.
> Martin
> Martin Davis, Senior Technical Architect
> Vivid Solutions Inc.
> Suite #1A-2328 Government Street   Victoria, B.C.   V8T 5G5
> Phone: (250) 385 6040 - Local 308      Fax: (250) 385 6046
> _______________________________________________
> geos-devel mailing list
> geos-devel at geos.refractions.net
> http://geos.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel

More information about the geos-devel mailing list