[QGIS-Developer] Status of transaction support in Geopackages

[Luigi Pirelli]

I agree about GDLA/OGR, and are the positions already expressed in the Mark's PR

but take into account that:

1) maintainer could be Mark (as for other core plugins e.g.
MetaSearch). I agree that having only a maintainer for a complex core
part can be dangerous for quality of the overall project => agree with
Regis, could be a PSC decision.
2) The code is already there and should overpass some sqlite
limitations not present in spatialite giving professional opportunity
right now (but also reducing the hability to rise funds for a OGR
solution :( )
3) It can be compiled or packaged optionally
4) Marks seems not focusing on work on GDAL/OGR

btw without reviewers it's hard to have any merge
Luigi Pirelli

**************************************************************************************************
* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli
* Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli
* GitHub: https://github.com/luipir
* Mastering QGIS 2nd Edition:
* https://www.packtpub.com/big-data-and-business-intelligence/mastering-qgis-second-edition
* Hire me: http://goo.gl/BYRQKg
**************************************************************************************************


On 27 February 2018 at 21:40, 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.
>
> 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 Pasotti
> w3:   www.itopen.it