Hi, Definitely, the new release can’t wait too long. Besides, for a PostgreSQL user install PostGIS is feasible, but I don’t discard the option that in the future GeoSPARL could be pluggable. It will be like a packet manager. It not just helps GeoSPARQL module but also other modules that will appear in the future.
So, I choose second option. b) +1 Cheers. > On Jun 8, 2016, at 10:20, fernando baculima <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all. > > I think it should be mandatory. > > For users who want to use PostgreSQL, somehow, it wouldn't be complicated > to install extensions like PostGIS. > > For those who use the default database (H2) or other, I guess there won´t > be any trouble > > > > Cheers > > 2016-06-08 3:02 GMT-05:00 Sergio Fernández <[email protected]>: > >> So, summarizing, we have two options: >> >> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional >> >> 2) Forget it and make it mandatory >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Sergio Fernández <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> TL;DR optional GeoSPARQL support is so dirty to implement, so I want to >>> discuss what to do. >>> >>> as the last part to have GeoSPARQL in KiWi (MARMOTTA-584[1][2]) merged >>> into develop, in the last days I've been approaching (fighting) to make >> the >>> need of PostGIS option {MARMOTTA-638 [3]) and try to finally work on a >> new >>> release with this feature. >>> >>> As discussed [4], the advantage of getting MARMOTTA-638 done would be to >>> lower the update requirements (i.e., if you don't want GeoSPARQL you >> would >>> not need to have PostGIS extension installed in PostgreSQL). >>> >>> The disadvantage is that complicates quite some the implementation: as we >>> extensively use prepare statements you would need to have two db schemas >>> (one with a fake geometry, another one with an actual geometry), which >>> complicates everything. Locally I have a path I'm very unsatisfied with >> its >>> quality, and I'm pretty sure will be the source of many issues in the >> near >>> future. Therefore I; m not completely sure I want to continue that path, >>> but I think it's an aspect that requires further discussion. >>> >>> So, summarizing, we have two options: >>> >>> 1) Spend some more time (hard to estimate) to get GeoSPARQL optional >>> >>> 2) Forget >>> >>> My vote now goes to the second option, because: a) it make the source >> base >>> far more maintainable; b) after all PostGIS is widely supported and >> trivial >>> to install; and c) this feature is blocking 3.4.0 for too long. But I'd >>> like to listen to the opinion of the community to really decide what to >> do. >>> What do you think, guys? >>> >>> Thanks for your time. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-584 >>> [2] https://github.com/apache/marmotta/tree/MARMOTTA-584 >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MARMOTTA-638 >>> [4] http://markmail.org/message/3u55tk4xe4g2qgoa >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sergio Fernández >>> Partner Technology Manager >>> Redlink GmbH >>> m: +43 6602747925 >>> e: [email protected] >>> w: http://redlink.co >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sergio Fernández >> Partner Technology Manager >> Redlink GmbH >> m: +43 6602747925 >> e: [email protected] >> w: http://redlink.co >>
