[QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

[Andreas Neumann]

Hi all, 

Thanks all for the discussion around Geopackages, SpatiaLite, etc. 

Not sure if the PSC can help here? 

To me it seems like many people would prefer that we invest into OGR to
improve the Geopackage support - right? Isn't there consensus on that
already? 

So - it would be a matter of improving the geopackage support in OGR, so
QGIS can profit from that. 

Who would be a good developer to ask for this? Even? Or others? Which
dev knows about OGR, Geopackage/SQlite and transaction group support? 

Or would we need a small group of devs and/or other contributors to
better specify what we need and then look for a suitable dev to
implement our requirements? 

Thanks, 

Andreas 

On 2018-02-27 22:29, Régis Haubourg wrote:

> 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 [1]
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer [1]
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

 

Links:
------
[1] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20180228/f562d138/attachment-0001.html>