New RFC posted

[Thomas Knoell]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Hi,

 

I posted a new RFC (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc29) related to a usability issue of the expression function EXTRACT. The proposed solution will redefine this expression function for easier use. Please review the RFC and let me know of any questions/issues/suggestions you may have.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

[Jason Birch]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Interesting…

 

Would there be any interest in superseding this function with individual YEAR(), MONTH(), DAY(), etc functions?  This would be easier to parse in the expression definition, and the user wouldn’t have to think about the return type (YEAR() always returns int, SECONDS() always returns double, etc.)

 

Jason

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 15:23
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Hi,

 

I posted a new RFC (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc29) related to a usability issue of the expression function EXTRACT. The proposed solution will redefine this expression function for easier use. Please review the RFC and let me know of any questions/issues/suggestions you may have.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

[Thomas Knoell]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Hi Jason,

 

The proposed solution is close to the signature we currently support for the expression function Extract. It also is in-line with other functions where we accept an identifier from an enumeration to avoid having multiple functions that just differ in the kind of information it returns. But if the consensus in this discussion is to have functions for each of the date/time properties, then the RFC could be adopted.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:52 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Interesting…

 

Would there be any interest in superseding this function with individual YEAR(), MONTH(), DAY(), etc functions?  This would be easier to parse in the expression definition, and the user wouldn’t have to think about the return type (YEAR() always returns int, SECONDS() always returns double, etc.)

 

Jason

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 15:23
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Hi,

 

I posted a new RFC (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc29) related to a usability issue of the expression function EXTRACT. The proposed solution will redefine this expression function for easier use. Please review the RFC and let me know of any questions/issues/suggestions you may have.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

[Greg Boone]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Hi All,

 

I would like to motion that RFC 29: “Redefining Expression Function EXTRACT” be adopted.

 

+1

Greg

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:01 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Hi Jason,

 

The proposed solution is close to the signature we currently support for the expression function Extract. It also is in-line with other functions where we accept an identifier from an enumeration to avoid having multiple functions that just differ in the kind of information it returns. But if the consensus in this discussion is to have functions for each of the date/time properties, then the RFC could be adopted.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:52 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Interesting…

 

Would there be any interest in superseding this function with individual YEAR(), MONTH(), DAY(), etc functions?  This would be easier to parse in the expression definition, and the user wouldn’t have to think about the return type (YEAR() always returns int, SECONDS() always returns double, etc.)

 

Jason

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 15:23
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Hi,

 

I posted a new RFC (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc29) related to a usability issue of the expression function EXTRACT. The proposed solution will redefine this expression function for easier use. Please review the RFC and let me know of any questions/issues/suggestions you may have.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

[Jason Birch]

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

+1 Jason

 

Fine by me, though I still find the naming of the function a bit unintuitive J

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 08:36
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] MOTION: RFC29: Redefining Expression FunctionEXTRACT

 

Hi All,

 

I would like to motion that RFC 29: “Redefining Expression Function EXTRACT” be adopted.

 

+1

Greg

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:01 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Hi Jason,

 

The proposed solution is close to the signature we currently support for the expression function Extract. It also is in-line with other functions where we accept an identifier from an enumeration to avoid having multiple functions that just differ in the kind of information it returns. But if the consensus in this discussion is to have functions for each of the date/time properties, then the RFC could be adopted.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:52 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Interesting…

 

Would there be any interest in superseding this function with individual YEAR(), MONTH(), DAY(), etc functions?  This would be easier to parse in the expression definition, and the user wouldn’t have to think about the return type (YEAR() always returns int, SECONDS() always returns double, etc.)

 

Jason

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 15:23
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted

 

Hi,

 

I posted a new RFC (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc29) related to a usability issue of the expression function EXTRACT. The proposed solution will redefine this expression function for easier use. Please review the RFC and let me know of any questions/issues/suggestions you may have.

 

Thanks

 

  Thomas

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

[Orest Halustchak]

+1

Orest.

------Original Message------
From: Jason Birch
To: FDO Internals Mail List
ReplyTo: FDO Internals Mail List
Sent: Dec 2, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] MOTION: RFC29: Redefining Expression       FunctionEXTRACT

+1 Jason



Fine by me, though I still find the naming of the function a bit unintuitive J



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 08:36
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] MOTION: RFC29: Redefining Expression FunctionEXTRACT



Hi All,



I would like to motion that RFC 29: “Redefining Expression Function EXTRACT” be adopted.



+1

Greg



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:01 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted



Hi Jason,



The proposed solution is close to the signature we currently support for the expression function Extract. It also is in-line with other functions where we accept an identifier from an enumeration to avoid having multiple functions that just differ in the kind of information it returns. But if the consensus in this discussion is to have functions for each of the date/time properties, then the RFC could be adopted.



Thanks



  Thomas



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:52 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted



Interesting…



Would there

------Original Message Truncated------


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals

[Greg Boone]

Based on the voting results, I declare the motion passed.

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Orest Halustchak
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:54 PM
To: '[hidden email]'
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] MOTION: RFC29: Redefining Expression FunctionEXTRACT

+1

Orest.

------Original Message------
From: Jason Birch
To: FDO Internals Mail List
ReplyTo: FDO Internals Mail List
Sent: Dec 2, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] MOTION: RFC29: Redefining Expression       FunctionEXTRACT

+1 Jason



Fine by me, though I still find the naming of the function a bit unintuitive J



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 08:36
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] MOTION: RFC29: Redefining Expression FunctionEXTRACT



Hi All,



I would like to motion that RFC 29: “Redefining Expression Function EXTRACT” be adopted.



+1

Greg



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Thomas Knoell
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 2:01 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted



Hi Jason,



The proposed solution is close to the signature we currently support for the expression function Extract. It also is in-line with other functions where we accept an identifier from an enumeration to avoid having multiple functions that just differ in the kind of information it returns. But if the consensus in this discussion is to have functions for each of the date/time properties, then the RFC could be adopted.



Thanks



  Thomas



From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:52 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] New RFC posted



Interesting…



Would there

------Original Message Truncated------


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals