On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Jochen Topf wrote:
Stefan, I do not like your tone here. It wouldn't kill you to be a bit more civilized to people.
This is the place for the 'too little, too late'. We are beyond the point of 'what' the bitstream should look like: you ought to handle what is defined now.
I wouldn't have asked this question if I wasn't working on PBF code. I do care about my code. I do care that it seems I am writing code that might never be used. I want to test the code that I am writing. Do you have code that actually writes PBF files in all those encodings? From the documentation I found on the wiki it seems that Osmosis doesn't.
Then you probably also noticed that it is still a (huge) open question to write a regression testsuite for all parsers and generators. And since the general opinion is now that nobody wants to move until there is a second implementation of osm2pbf (instead of actually switching), everyone is waiting this greatly annoys me and probably not only me but also the guy that actually took great effort to define the protocol and review code of others and answer questions.
I find it totally respectless that *you* are now doubting his qualities but didn't step forward when feedback was asked.
So lets get back to the subject: Is anybody writing PBF files with anything but zlib compression? Do we need more compression types? If yes, would that be an option to the writer program or is the writer somehow supposed to figure out what the best compression is?
I guess it is not about the writer. It is about what the user wants to generate. Offer complexity over disksize.
Stefan _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
