Will this be available for java bindings too? On Sep 9, 2014 12:53 AM, "Even Rouault" <even.roua...@spatialys.com> wrote:
> > > - gnm/frmts/gnm_frmts.h : I'm a bit concerned about exposing (installed > > > > > header + CPL_DLL) an interface that has not yet been implemented. My > > > intuition > > > is that it might change once the first one or two implementations have > > > been made. So maybe keep it internal/experimental for now. > > > > I agree that the inclusion of the interfaces/capabilities that can be > (not > > will be) extended in future is not a 100% good idea. I hoped that someone > > will be interested or even I will have time to implement and extend > > something of what I wrote at the "Future ideas" section in my RFC. But we > > do not know exactly will it be implemented or not. So: (1) We can remove > > for now all these interfaces "for future", which means to leave only > > GNMGdalNetwork and one analysing class. (2) Try to implement these > > capabilities: pgRouting for gnm_frmts.h and for example > > GNMGdalStdRoutingAnalyser with some algorithm extension (K shortest > path). > > It's your call. Depend on how much time you have to implement that, but we > might go with the current state, if we clearly mark > experimental/unstabilized > interfaces as such. Either by "hiding" them, or by documentation if not > possible. > > > - GNMManager::CreateConnectivity () : I'm confused by the 'native' term. > In > > > > > this method, native=false seems to imply the GDAL "proprietary" network > > > format > > > that can work with any vector driver that has similar capabilities than > > > shapefile. Whereas in the RFC text, it seems to imply the contrary ( > > > "network > > > of ”GDAL-native” format"). > > > > Maybe I used it not correctly everywhere, but the general idea is the > > following: The term "native" corresponds to the existed network formats > (so > > when we work with pgRouting network we work with its native tables and > > fields, rather than with GNMGdal- system layers), while the GDAL-networks > > are not "native" and more likely "common". > > > > Yes, that would be good if the language could be consistent among the code > and > the RFC text. From your explanation, it seems that the text in the RFC > should > be corrected. Yes GDAL-network is more a "common" or "generic" network > implementation. > > -- > Spatialys - Geospatial professional services > http://www.spatialys.com > _______________________________________________ > gdal-dev mailing list > gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev