Hi Martin, I think the closest thing would be the File Geo Database and Personal Geo Database.
http://www.gdal.org/ogr/drv_filegdb.html http://www.gdal.org/ogr/drv_pgeo.html The only difference is there is no written specifications of the format that I know of. Thanks, Travis On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Martin Desruisseaux < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Adam and Travis > > Lets keep Shapefile in its own module then. I wonder out of curiosity, is > there a "family" of formats very similar to Shapefile? If such family > exists, would it make sense to create a module for such "Shapefile-family" > formats and what would be the name? If not, creating a module for Shapefile > only is fine. > > Thanks for the feedback > > Martin > > > Le 26/08/13 03:47, Travis L Pinney a écrit : > > Hi Adam and Martin, >> >> Would it be ok to leave it as is because there are a small number of data >> storage modules currently? I think of storage as something that holds >> common formats that run across all the different storage formats, like a >> Feature. Eventually it will get to the point where you will not want to >> have a multitude of jar files. I see the sis-shapefile as a fairly >> distinct >> file driver because of the complex format of a shapefile (not necessarily >> good complexity). >> >> Adding GDAL bindings for commons formats would be very useful. This would >> make it easier to do large bulk processing of geospatial data with Hadoop >> like the presentation in the following video: >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=_JCPf89s-NI<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JCPf89s-NI> >> >> >> Thanks, >> Travis >> > > >
