[QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

[Régis Haubourg]

2018-02-27 11:12 GMT+01:00 Mark Johnson <mj10777 at googlemail.com>:

> >> that we get rid of the current provider and rely on GDAL only.
>
> With the 'current provider' I assume you mean the Spatialite-Provider.
>
> Please remember that the Spatialite-Provider was never designed to support
> GeoPackage.
>

Hi Mark, I didn't say that. My suggestion was to activate transaction
groups for all DB providers allowing that. And spatialite would be one of
them, aside from geopackage-gdal.


>
> Please also remember that Gdal/Ogr does not support all aspects of
> Spatialite
> - writable SpatialViews are not supported
>
> The present QgsOgrProvider does not support Spatialite-Tables with more
> than 1 geometry properly.
>

Do you have a link to the issues? Does it ignore them or worse?


>
> 'that we get rid of the current provider' would then mean for me (and no
> doubt other) that Qgis would become fairly useless.
>

mmmh, you already know of the previous discussions and the issue of having
overlapping providers, which mean both don't receive as much love as they
deserve and users get in confusion having two ways of accessing the same
datasource. The same happened for shapefile provider, and still happens for
delimited file. The cleaner option is always to merge effort in Open Source
model, when it's possible. Why not fix GDAL limitations, so that all other
clients will benefit from those improvements?


>
> That the present Spatialite-Provider is sadly underdeveloped and in no way
> will be able to deal with the upcoming Spatialite 5.0 changes is well known.
>

My point above. In my knowledge, less than 3-4 dev are involved in that
area, and are working on two different providers. Having you all on the
same code base is a neat solution I think.


>
> A new Spatialite-Provider is being actively worked on and is earmarked for
> Qgis 3.2, that will deal with the present problems as well as supporting
> the extra functionality of Spatialite 5.0.
>

Ok good to know, and let's make that happen if the work is mostly done.
In my recording, the amount of work to review the massive PRs was a
limiting factor to have that merged. And the QGIS reviewing process is
still remaining on unpaied volunteer work. Do you have plans to ease that
review process?

Best regards,
Régis Haubourg


>
> Mark Johnson, Berlin Germany
>
> _______________________________________________
> QGIS-Developer mailing list
> QGIS-Developer at lists.osgeo.org
> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20180227/71d3c976/attachment.html>