Selon Ivan Lucena <lucena_i...@hotmail.com>: > > Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:46:35 +0200 > > From: even.roua...@mines-paris.org > > To: mate...@loskot.net > > CC: lucena_i...@hotmail.com; even.roua...@mines-paris.org; > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > > Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] RFC 46 GDAL/OGR unification adopted and commited > > > > Selon Mateusz <mate...@loskot.net>: > > > > I'd rather see frmts/mixed/XXXXX if XXXXX is a single driver that can > return > > both raster and vector content. > > If you have a XXXXX (GeoRaster) and YYYYYY (OGR OCI) drivers that use > common > > code but remain separate, I'd say you can have frmts/raster/XXXXX and > > frmts/vector/YYYYY and make one of them include headers from the other one. > Like > > That is fine. That will be just a matter of adding some -I include path. > > > it has been done up to now. Well if you want it to be cleaner, you could > have > > frmts/common/oracle and put in there the common code. However, if they are > > plugins and not build-in driver, you should however make sure that both > drivers > > are bundled in the same shared object. > > I don't think that will be necessary. I mean, the /common folder. > > But let me through another idea, if you don't mind. > > What if the folder under /frmts where organized by software/company name, not > by container?
My feeling is that there are not so many drivers that are unambiguously associated with a software/company. And if you take a particular company, the common points between shape file, PGeo, FileGDB, OpenFileGDB, SDE or ArcObjects are rather small (I can only think to shapefile blob encoding/decoding for pgeo/mdb and filegdb/openfilegdb). And it would be rather amusing to place OpenFileGDB under an E$RI directory. And sometimes the company name changes many times, but the format remains (ECW...) > > BTW, that is what I did on my first GDAL driver, I used the software name not > the format or driver name as the folder name. > > IMHO there is no need for /vector, /raster or /mixed sub-folder. It really > doesn't matter if a driver is mixed or not, in terms of folder structure. > That should be dictated by the code. I agree. There's no technical necessity in that /vector, /raster and /mixed possible structure. I've just had a look at how QGIS ogranize their providers - https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/tree/master/src/providers - and it is flat, mixing raster and vector. But they have "only" 15 of them. > > Inside the software/company sub-folder, the developer could organize folder > names in the anyway they want, as long as there is a main makefile to be > called. Or maybe not even that, because a driver could be plugin-only. Inside > that folder you could have one, two, three or more drivers, mixed or not. And > we could still have formats independent from software/companies seating on > the /frmts folder just like he have now. > > Would that be too much freedom? Would make it more organized or messier? No definitive conclusion from myself. The frmts/raster frmts/vector approach was a no-brainer adaptation of the current organization. > > Like I said before, I am fine with what you proposed. I am just giving some > ideas. I am not concerned about "my two drivers" but about the health of the > overall GDAL code. > > My best regards, > > Ivan > > > > > > > > > On 27 May 2014 01:24, Ivan Lucena <lucena_i...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > What I am most interested is to have two driver > > > > (that uses the same data container) sharing a little bit of code. > > > > [...] > > > > In my case I would like to have a folder structure to keep my two > driver > > > > under the same folder. > > > > > > > > Something like that: > > > > > > > > /frmts/container/ > > > > /frmts/container/vector > > > > /frmts/container/raster > > > > > > > > But that idea doesn't help with your concern about a large number of > > > > sub-folders under /frmts. > > > > > > Ivan, > > > > > > You've touched an important issues - sharing of code between drivers that > > > connect to the same data provider. > > > > > > My understanding is that drivers like Oracle or PostGIS would have the > > > following structure: > > > > > > /frmts/mixed/oracle > > > /frmts/mixed/postgis > > > > > > I'm not sure if I've grasped the idea well though. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > -- > > > Mateusz Åoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > > > > _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev