On 17 December 2013 09:03, Even Rouault <even.roua...@mines-paris.org> wrote: > Selon Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca>: > >> Back to this, is it OK? > > As said in > http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/2013-December/037738.html, > I feel a bit unconfortable with the extension of the OGRwkbGeometryType > enumeration that has possible impacts on other parts of OGR. There's perhaps a > time where we will touch it, but I'd expect it to ideally embrace Z, M, ZM, > circular geometries at once. And that would deserve a RFC. > > What do you think of keeping it an internal enumeration of OGR, since that's > probably all you need for now ? > > "Or have a separate OGRwkbIsoGeometryType enumeration { wkbPointIso, ... > wkbGeometryCollectionIso, wkbPointIsoZ, ... wkbGeometryCollectionIsoZ }, a > getIsoGeometryType() method that returns it, and the exportToWkb() methods > that calls int getGeometryType(OGRwkbVariant eVariant) { return (eVariant == > wkbVariantOgc) ? getGeometryType() : getIsoGeometryType(); }" > > I'd be happy to hear about other GDAL developers opinion on this.
IMHO, each format based on a particular spec/standard should be supported with a separate interface (enum + functions) per format/standard. Best regards, -- Mateusz Ĺoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev