[postgis-devel] Function names in PostGIS

[Mark Leslie]

This isn't a terrible plan, but it isn't the extent of what will need to 
be done.  When we first made the move to ST_, it was for two reasons.  
SQL/MM had finally given us a standard namespace to grab onto.  But it 
was also a matter of isolating all the PostGIS functions from the 
PostgreSQL standard functions.  This is still something we should try 
and do.  If we change the namespaces (and I realize I'm using the term 
fairly loosely)  we really should provide namespace prefixing for the 
SFSQL functions, as well as the ESRI compatible functions, and then 
provide yet another for PostGIS only functions.  This would result in a 
number of redundant names, as SFSQL and SQL/MM have much functional overlap.

-- 
Mark Leslie
Geospatial Software Architect
LISAsoft

-------------------------------------------------------------
Ph: +61 2 8570 5000 Fax: +61 2 8570 5099 Mob: +61 
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf 19-21 Pirrama Rd Pyrmont NSW 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------

LISAsoft is part of the A2end Group of Companies
http://www.ardec.com.au
http://www.lisasoft.com
http://www.terrapages.com

Obe, Regina wrote:
> I had the same thought too, but thought it would be too confusing to people to go back and change all those so didn't care to voice the concern.  Moving forward is a good idea I think.
>
> It is confusing to have things like ST_Dump() and realize it really isn't an SQL/MM function.  I noticed when looking at SQL Server 2008 - that the functions that are not part of the spec they did not prefix with ST.. so it is easier to tell when you are using proprietary stuff.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net [mailto:postgis-devel-bounces at postgis.refractions.net] On Behalf Of Håvard Tveite
> Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 7:06 AM
> To: PostGIS Development Discussion
> Subject: [postgis-devel] Function names in PostGIS
>
> Regarding function names in PostGIS.
>
> I was wondering if it would be a good idea to reserve the
> "ST_" prefix for SQL/MM functions?
> This would make it easier for users to know when they are
> using "standard" functions and when they are using (the less
> portable) PostGIS functions.  It would also save us trouble
> if SQL/MM should introduce new a function with the same name
> as a PostGIS function, but with different semantics.
>
> Just a thought...
>
>