[QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

[Régis Haubourg]

Thanks Alessandro and Nyall,
that said, it means that two reviewers are probably not found of having
those PR integrated as is. Our community is based on consensus I think,
Could we raise that topic up to the PSC level?
Thoughts?
Régis

2018-02-27 22:05 GMT+01:00 Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com>:

> On 28 February 2018 at 06:40, Alessandro Pasotti <apasotti at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Luigi Pirelli <luipir at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On 27/02/2018 11:12, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >> >>>> 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.
> >> >>
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Would it be possible to add these to the QgsOgrProvider, or are there
> >> > some limitations ?
> >>
> >> Hi Hugo
> >>
> >> Some technical opinion are available in related PR done by Mark to
> >> propose a new Spatialite provider.
> >> The general opinion is to check before if it make sense to remove
> >> spatialite limitations in the gdal provider to sqlite.
> >> There are also opinon that the PR is actually not so simple to review,
> >> for the complexity and extension. Oslandia can do it if apport more to
> >> his business.
> >>
> >> IMHO I can't see any problem to merge it after review and have a new
> >> or parallel spatialite provicer.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I do: I think that unless there is an overwhelming technical
> reason to
> > take a different route, QGIS should not create alternative providers
> where
> > OGR/GDAL can do the job.
>
> +1.
>
> I strongly believe it would be a dangerous mistake for the QGIS
> project to invest further development time and maintenance burden by
> extending the spatialite provider, and I've made that view clear on
> every discussion related to the spatialite provider over the 3.0
> development cycle.
>
> > The reason is both in how open source works: building wonderful
> applications
> > on top of wonderful libraries (GDAL/OGR in this case) and in how we
> should
> > avoid to enlarge the code base without a valid reason.
> >
> > The right approach in this particular case is IMHO to work with OGR/GDAL
> to
> > add the missing features in the base libraries or to improve the existing
> > QGIS providers if the problems is in them, this will prevent duplication
> and
> > lower the maintenance efforts on the shoulders of QGIS developers.
>
> Alessandro has summed up my thoughts exactly.
>
> Nyall
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e62e9b5c/attachment-0001.html>