[geos-devel] GSoC Proposal : Expose PrecisionModel through C-API

[Varun Saraf]

Hi,

Since today is the last day for submitting the proposal, it would be great
to have some feedback on my proposal which I have submitted on melange [1].
Also, GEOS is not listed on the OSGeo GSoC ideas wiki page [2] as of yet.

Regards,
Varun Saraf

[1]
http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/student/google/gsoc2014/varunsaraf/5668600916475904
[2] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code_2014_Ideas

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Varun Saraf <varunsaraf14 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Below is the link to the initial draft of my proposal. Please have a look
> and let me know. I have enabled comments so you can comment there itself.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MBGF1w5WNGuT4KSBtrT7uJRHRtfpx_J1ik03LKk9GJs/edit#
>
> Regards,
> Varun Saraf
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Sandro Santilli <strk at keybit.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 12:24:19PM -0600, Sean Gillies wrote:
>>> > On Mar 12, 2014 6:46 AM, "Sandro Santilli" <strk at keybit.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 06:16:00AM -0400, Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>> > > > I would tend to expect choosing a single precision model and
>>> working
>>> > > > with it for a long time to be a more common usage than swapping
>>> > > > between lots of models. My bias.
>>> > >
>>> > > I also find this to be a more likely usecase.
>>> >
>>> > While agree that one model at a time (and two at the most) is the most
>>> > likely use case, I'm concerned about designs that limit the number. I'm
>>> > also reversing myself on whether there should be a precision model in
>>> the
>>> > global context. I'd rather GEOS did not add more global state.
>>> >
>>> > Please see the wiki page
>>> > http://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/GSoC/CAPI_PrecisionModel for my
>>> (Shapely)
>>> > requirements.
>>>
>>> So what would you think about "parking" a pointer to the client-owned
>>> GeometryFactory into the "context" right before calling the geometry
>>> creation functions ? Such "parking" method would return the old
>>> GeometryFactory, so that you can pass it back. You'd only own the
>>> GeometryFactory objects you'd have explicitly created.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about GeometryFactory rather than PrecisionModel because
>>> the object referenced  by geometries is really a GeometryFactory,
>>> not a PrecisionModel. A GeometryFactory also references a
>>> CoordinateSequenceFactory.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds practical. Geometry objects will have to park their factories
>> before every operation, right? Offloading complexity to client code seems
>> fair enough.
>>
>> I've updated my wiki notes to refer to geometry factories instead of
>> models.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sean Gillies
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> geos-devel mailing list
>> geos-devel at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geos-devel/attachments/20140321/5ed189e8/attachment.html>