I've understood what you were saying. I was tempted myself to create a new enumeration. Orest suggested it as well in our discussions. The problem is Occam and his damn razor, which people seem to ignore...
Thanks for your support!
Dan.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:19 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
I'm talking about the same enumeration. Just add more values to the existing one, while keeping the old ones in there.
enum FdoSpatialOperations
{
FdoSpatialOperations_Contains,
FdoSpatialOperations_Crosses,
FdoSpatialOperations_Disjoint,
FdoSpatialOperations_Equals,
FdoSpatialOperations_Intersects,
FdoSpatialOperations_Overlaps,
FdoSpatialOperations_Touches,
FdoSpatialOperations_Within,
FdoSpatialOperations_CoveredBy,
FdoSpatialOperations_Inside,
FdoSpatialOperations_EnvelopeIntersects,
FdoSpatialOperations_Relate = 0x100,
FdoSpatialOperations_RelateContains = 0x200,
FdoSpatialOperations_RelateCrosses = 0x400,
FdoSpatialOperations_RelateDisjoint = 0x800,
FdoSpatialOperations_RelateEquals = 0x1000,
etc....
};
Anyway, this was just a suggestion in case people want to keep full backward binary compatibility of the existing enumeration. I already voted +1 for the RFC, and I still support it as is.
Traian
________________________________________
From:
[hidden email] [
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica [
[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 9:03 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
Interesting idea, but I didn't want to create a new enumeration since people are already used with the existing one and it would look quite redundant. Reminded me of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor...
Cheers,
Dan.
-----Original Message-----
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 7:28 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
If we want to be *really* backwards compatible, we could reserve the old values to have the same meanings as now, and allocate the new enumeration values starting at 0x100, 0x200 and so on in the same enumeration.
This way it is unambiguous -- if the value is 255 or less, it is one of the existing spatial operations. If it is more than that, then it is a new bitmasked spatial operation.
Traian
________________________________________
From:
[hidden email] [
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica [
[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:48 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
As Traian said, “people will have to recompile their programs anyway”
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:41 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
What about applications other than MapGuide?
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:24 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
Thanks, Traian, you saved me an email ☺
Dan.
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:20 PM
To: 'FDO Internals Mail List'
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
Well, I checked the MG codebase, and there is already such conversion function between the Mapguide and the FDO enumeration (see s_FdoSpatialOperation map), so it should not be a problem for MapGuide either.
Traian
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 5:04 PM
To: 'FDO Internals Mail List'
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
I guess since FDO API compatibility is already broken for 3.5 versus 3.4, it’s ok to make the change, with the knowledge that people will have to recompile their programs anyway.
However, I remember that MapGuide has a mirror of this enumeration that it uses in its API and then casts to FDO enumerated values directly. So I assume that there will need to be at least a change in MapGuide to add a function that does the conversion now, since the values no longer match. Might be worth searching the MapGuide API code for MgFeatureSpatialOperations.
Traian
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:45 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
What about API functional compatibility?
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Dan Stoica
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:35 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
The backward compatibility is already broken…
Thanks,
Dan.
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Traian Stanev
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:15 PM
To: 'FDO Internals Mail List'
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
+1 Traian
I assume that renumbering the existing FdoSpatialOperations enumeration was considered OK in terms of backward compatibility?
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Orest Halustchak
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:03 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] Motion: vote RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support
Hi,
There haven’t been any more comments on FDO RFC 39 - Spatial operator combinations support.
http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc39I would like to motion for a vote on this RFC.
+1 from me.
Thanks,
Orest.
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
