[RFC-24] USE_MAPSCRIPT configure flag

Umberto Nicoletti umberto.nicoletti at GMAIL.COM
Thu May 24 02:29:44 EDT 2007

On 5/23/07, Tamas Szekeres <szekerest at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'll start a new thread on the subject. TBH I think the USE_MAPSCRIPT
is a bit hard to manage for both us and users and maybe we'd be better
of without.

> >
> > > 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.

That is reasonable. I have looked at your code and it seems pretty ok,
just have to find a couple of spare days...


> Best regards,
> Tamas

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list