[RFC-24] USE_MAPSCRIPT configure flag

[Tamas Szekeres]

2007/5/23, Umberto Nicoletti <umberto.nicoletti at gmail.com>:
> > I think we should give some help in the decision when to enable this
> > option. For example currently ms4w supports the cgi application as
> > well as the various mapscript bindings. Which option should Jeff use
> > to continue supporting both in the ms4w package? Or should he separate
> > the builds related to the targets and eventually provide 2 versions of
> > the libmap.dll (a mapscript and a non mapscript version)
> > I think USE_REFCOUNT instead of USE_MAPSCRIPT would describe better
> > the effects behind this setting.
> >
>
> That's why I posted the patch here instead of applying it directly,
> even though the RFC already described exactly what I was going to do.
> I am available for discussing and optionally voting once again on this
> issue.
> Maybe we should start a separate thread for this?
>

Umberto,

I personally would support to provide only one version and apply the
code regardless of expense. I don't suppose too much negative impact
on the performance of the reference counting itself. However it might
require to incorporate some additional code. Nonetheless I'll accept
the decision of the majority in this question.

>
> > IMO every class that might be a child of another should also be
> > handled somehow.  Destroying the parent will also destroy the
> > referenced memory of the children. Should those be treated by the
> > various bindings? Do you have a reference implementation for this?
> >
>
> The reference implementation is always rfc-24, for all of them. As
> I've said earlier luckily rfc-24 can be implemented in small steps,
> while not compromising current and past functionaltiy.
>

I'm keen to handle 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 myself for the C# bindings. In one of
my previous posts I've submitted some common typemaps for the parent
reference implementation that is working fairly well for the GDAL C#
interface. One of my primary intention is to modify minimal amount of
code and allow SWIG to spread the change across the various classes in
a generalized fashion. However the common implementation of RFC-24
should be completed first.


Best regards,

Tamas