On Aug 22, 2008, at 4:10 PM, Sean Gillies wrote:

> Jaakko Salli wrote:
>> Sean Gillies wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> If I remember correctly, the blocker for Rtree 1.0
>>>
>>>  http://trac.gispython.org/lab/milestone/Rtree%201.0
>>>
>>> is a unwritten want to have the Spatialindex library build on  
>>> Windows.
>>>
>> What problems exactly did you have building spatialindex on Windows?
>>
>> Regards,
>>  Jaakko
>
> Hi Jaakko,
>
> I haven't had any problems, myself, but then I'm not a Windows user ;)
> Do you have a DLL that works? If so, could I persuade you to make an
> Rtree bdist_winist [1] for us?
>
> Back to the 1.0 idea here ... Howard expressed a desire to switch  
> Rtree
> over to using ctypes before 1.0. I'd rather just get it out there as  
> it
> is since it's functionally complete, and perhaps switch to ctypes in a
> future milestone. Howard, how about we resolve this as you do in
> MapServer? That is, a -1 vote on pushing Rtree forward to 1.0 as it is
> carries with it the obligation to take the lead on a ctypes  
> implementation.


I won't veto it if a veto takes on that responsibility.  I don't think  
the current Rtree should be called 1.0, but I'm not too picky on  
names.  Here's some of the reasons why I don't think we're at 1.0 yet:

- We don't work on windows for file-based index storage (this is  
spatialindex's fault of course).
- We only support an extremely simple subset of what spatialindex  
supports, with very little configuration for a user who knows their  
way around r*trees.  Performance/memory issues that we might see from  
Python can easily be blamed on our limited configuration ability  
rather than the spatialindex library.
- The C/C++ interface between spatialindex and the Python Rtree code  
is less than ideal, and I don't think it is sustainable for long term  
development if the goal above is also a goal of the project.

I do desire this stuff to be improved, but I have no time/money/client/ 
business case to drive it forward.  If we want to slap a 1.0 on what  
we have and call the next 2.0, that's fine with me too.  Whatever we  
call it, it's not *done* in my mind.

Howard
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Reply via email to