[postgis-devel] Geom/Geog Hack Plan

[Havard Tveite]

nicklas.aven at jordogskog.no wrote:
> Just a question for my understanding.
> What's the argument against a special prefix in function-name for those 
> functions.

One possible argument:
One should not introduce a separate name for a function that
is just a hack for the proper function.  One could consider
introducing a separate name for such a function if it would
be interesting to use the function its own right once the
proper function is fully implemented and in place.
Less functions to document and maintain.

Håvard

> If the argument is that we then can implement the "real" function in a 
> micro-release, I don't think it is a good argument.
> Exchanging the hacked version with the real will cause a changed 
> behavior of the function and is probably not what users expect from a 
> micro-release, from the policy not to change functionality in 
> micro-releases.
>  
> /Nicklas
> 
> 2009-11-03 Paragon Corporation wrote:
> 
> Paul and Kevin,
>  >
>  >I'm in agreement with Mark too. I suppose one or 2 of these functions is
>  >not going to pollute our 1.5 that much.
>  >
>  >So how about this as a plan:
>  >
>  >Paul picks 1 or 2 more of these kind of functions. Note we already have
>  >buffer -- which is now documented. Though not sure if the documentation is
>  >clear enough -
>  >http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ST_Buffer.html (and I 
> think
>  >we need to revise our documentation template yet again -- though I'll put
>  >that in a separate note).
>  >
>  >The rest of the functions get put in a wiki page and prominently 
> linked from
>  >the documentation
>  >
>  >
>  > in geography index
>  >http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ch08.html#PostGIS_GeographyF
>  >unctions
>  >
>  >as well as geography description page
>  >
>  > for easy access
>  >http://www.postgis.org/documentation/manual-svn/ch04.html#PostGIS_Geography
>  >
>  >Is everyone okay with that plan?
>  >
>  >Thanks,
>  >Regina