Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

Christine Bao

Hi all,

 

Please review patch https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917/917.patch for fixing ticket https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917. Thanks.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

 


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

Greg Boone

Hi Christine,

 

This may be an a good solution for the customer that reported the issue, but from an FDO API perspective this is an odd fit. The Provider requests that a curve string be generated and instead a line string is generated, with associated data loss.

 

I think we would need to meet to discuss. Is this the only alternate? Why doesn’t the WFS provider handle this as a special case and not change the base FDO API?

 

Greg

 

From: fdo-internals [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christine Bao
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Hi all,

 

Please review patch https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917/917.patch for fixing ticket https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917. Thanks.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

 


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

Greg Boone

Hi Christine, Andy,

Please create an RFC document t and formally request this change through the PSC and fdo-Internals. 

Here is the link to the RFC page on osgo.org 

Regards
Greg 

On May 19, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Christine,

 

This may be an a good solution for the customer that reported the issue, but from an FDO API perspective this is an odd fit. The Provider requests that a curve string be generated and instead a line string is generated, with associated data loss.

 

I think we would need to meet to discuss. Is this the only alternate? Why doesn’t the WFS provider handle this as a special case and not change the base FDO API?

 

Greg

 

From: fdo-internals [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christine Bao
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Hi all,

 

Please review patch https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917/917.patch for fixing ticket https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917. Thanks.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

 


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

Greg Boone
Forgot to add the link. 


Greg 

On May 19, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hi Christine, Andy,

Please create an RFC document t and formally request this change through the PSC and fdo-Internals. 

Here is the link to the RFC page on osgo.org 

Regards
Greg 

On May 19, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Christine,

 

This may be an a good solution for the customer that reported the issue, but from an FDO API perspective this is an odd fit. The Provider requests that a curve string be generated and instead a line string is generated, with associated data loss.

 

I think we would need to meet to discuss. Is this the only alternate? Why doesn’t the WFS provider handle this as a special case and not change the base FDO API?

 

Greg

 

From: fdo-internals [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christine Bao
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Hi all,

 

Please review patch https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917/917.patch for fixing ticket https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917. Thanks.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

 


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

Christine Bao

Hi Greg,

 

Thanks for the advice. The RFC is created https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc71.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

From: Greg Boone
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; Christine Bao; Andy Zhang
Cc: Brent Robinson; Orest Halustchak
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Forgot to add the link. 

 

 

Greg 


On May 19, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hi Christine, Andy,

 

Please create an RFC document t and formally request this change through the PSC and fdo-Internals. 

 

Here is the link to the RFC page on osgo.org 

 

Regards

Greg 


On May 19, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Christine,

 

This may be an a good solution for the customer that reported the issue, but from an FDO API perspective this is an odd fit. The Provider requests that a curve string be generated and instead a line string is generated, with associated data loss.

 

I think we would need to meet to discuss. Is this the only alternate? Why doesn’t the WFS provider handle this as a special case and not change the base FDO API?

 

Greg

 

From: fdo-internals [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christine Bao
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Hi all,

 

Please review patch https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917/917.patch for fixing ticket https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917. Thanks.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

 


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

Greg Boone
Can I ask the steering committee to spend a little time reviewing this proposal? I am somewhat neutral on the idea since it does feel like a workaround rather than a solution. However, the workaround may be an interim step that allows customers to move forward in an unblocked manner. 

Greg

Sent from my iPad

On May 19, 2016, at 10:26 PM, Christine Bao <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Greg,

 

Thanks for the advice. The RFC is created https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc71.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

From: Greg Boone
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; Christine Bao; Andy Zhang
Cc: Brent Robinson; Orest Halustchak
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Forgot to add the link. 

 

 

Greg 


On May 19, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hi Christine, Andy,

 

Please create an RFC document t and formally request this change through the PSC and fdo-Internals. 

 

Here is the link to the RFC page on osgo.org 

 

Regards

Greg 


On May 19, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Christine,

 

This may be an a good solution for the customer that reported the issue, but from an FDO API perspective this is an odd fit. The Provider requests that a curve string be generated and instead a line string is generated, with associated data loss.

 

I think we would need to meet to discuss. Is this the only alternate? Why doesn’t the WFS provider handle this as a special case and not change the base FDO API?

 

Greg

 

From: fdo-internals [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christine Bao
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Hi all,

 

Please review patch https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917/917.patch for fixing ticket https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917. Thanks.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

 


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Please review FDO RFC 71

Greg Boone
In reply to this post by Christine Bao
Can I ask the steering committee to spend a little time reviewing this proposal? I am somewhat neutral on the idea since it does feel like a short term workaround rather than a long term solution. However, the workaround may be an interim step that allows customers to move forward in an unblocked manner. 


Regards,
Greg

Sent from my iPad

On May 19, 2016, at 10:26 PM, Christine Bao <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Greg,

 

Thanks for the advice. The RFC is created https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc71.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

From: Greg Boone
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 4:57 AM
To: [hidden email]; Christine Bao; Andy Zhang
Cc: Brent Robinson; Orest Halustchak
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Forgot to add the link. 

 

 

Greg 


On May 19, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:


Hi Christine, Andy,

 

Please create an RFC document t and formally request this change through the PSC and fdo-Internals. 

 

Here is the link to the RFC page on osgo.org 

 

Regards

Greg 


On May 19, 2016, at 4:11 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Christine,

 

This may be an a good solution for the customer that reported the issue, but from an FDO API perspective this is an odd fit. The Provider requests that a curve string be generated and instead a line string is generated, with associated data loss.

 

I think we would need to meet to discuss. Is this the only alternate? Why doesn’t the WFS provider handle this as a special case and not change the base FDO API?

 

Greg

 

From: fdo-internals [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Christine Bao
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:00 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [fdo-internals] Please review https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917

 

Hi all,

 

Please review patch https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917/917.patch for fixing ticket https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/attachment/ticket/917. Thanks.

 

Thanks & regards,

Christine

 

 


_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Please review FDO RFC 71

Johan Van de Wauw
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Greg Boone <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Can I ask the steering committee to spend a little time reviewing this
> proposal? I am somewhat neutral on the idea since it does feel like a short
> term workaround rather than a long term solution. However, the workaround
> may be an interim step that allows customers to move forward in an unblocked
> manner.
>
> https://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc71
>
Not a PSC member here, but looking at the code I am wondering how a
full circle be rendered. Would it not be better to add intermediate
points say every pi/8 (22.5 °).

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