[postgis-devel] [raster] Paths local to server
mateusz at loskot.net
Fri Mar 1 01:46:04 PST 2013
On 1 March 2013 09:22, Sandro Santilli <strk at keybit.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 01:12:12PM -0800, Bborie Park wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
>> > On 28 February 2013 21:01, Bborie Park <dustymugs at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Mateusz Loskot <mateusz at loskot.net> wrote:
>> True, "flawed" might be a bit harsh. Incomplete would be a better
>> word choice. We need to do away with the entire in-db and out-db
>> notion and just return the pixel values.
> Guys, I don't care about the terms you use, don't waste time with
> that. Feel free to hit me as hard as you can :)
(I sense post-election depression, have a drink Sandro :))
> That said, the RFC2 was born to really describe the internal binary format.
> If you read it under that light it should be consistent.
> I suggest writing another RFC for the real transport format.
> For example, the "Offline/Online" flag wouldn't be needed there.
Sounds sensible. Even post factum it may be worth to clarify things.
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
More information about the postgis-devel