Hi Regina, This work would be not cause any changes to the C API, though we would ultimately want to add some functions to the C API to create packed coordinate sequences.
Dan On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 9:53 AM Regina Obe <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no objection. I know Vicky was complaining about the large number > of functions that should be private that are exposed. She was planning to > deprecate them in 3.8 and remove/make private in a later release. > > > > I'm not sure if this is related to that if she's even looked at that > class. Are these linked into CAPI at all? If so we should probably stub > them with an error, if not, I don't care if they are removed as we never > said the C++ -API is stable yet. My hope is once we clean things up a bit, > we can guarantee some level of stability for the C++ API as well. > > > > > > Thanks, > > Regina > > > > *From:* geos-devel [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf > Of *Daniel Baston > *Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:10 AM > *To:* GEOS Development List <[email protected]> > *Subject:* [geos-devel] Refactoring CoordinateSequence > > > > I've been exploring porting the PackedCoordinateSequence from JTS to GEOS > because it seems like a useful way to improve the interoperability of GEOS > with other code (LWGEOM, for example) without requiring copying of > everything into GEOS data structures. It turns out that extending > CoordinateSequence is pretty onerous in GEOS; the CoordinateSequence class > contains many abstract methods that are not in the corresponding > CoordinateSequence JTS interface. These methods add requirements of > mutability (CoordinateSequence::setAt) and extensibility/contractability > (CoordianteSequence::add, CoordianteSequence::deleteAt) and require the > author of a derived class to implement functionality that could be seen as > unrelated to storing a sequence of coordinates (removeRepeatedPoints, > apply_ro, etc.). Does anyone know why so many methods are added to GEOS > CoordinateSequence that have no JTS equivalent, and are there any > objections to factoring some of the functionality out of the > CoordianteSequence class so that it's easier to write other > CoordinateSequence implementations? > > > > Dan > _______________________________________________ > geos-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
