On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:36 AM, Pieter De Graef <[email protected]> wrote: > On one hand there is the Simple Feature Specification which is clearly an > Object Oriented model with the advantage that it is well known but is also > more difficult to implement the JavaScript wrapper around. > On the other hand we could follow a service based model (more like SFS for > SQL) which is easier to get up and running, easier to create a JavaScript > wrapper for and easier to translate into web services. > As it's difficult for us to chose and as it's a pretty crucial decision for > the future of the Geomajas project, I as wondering how you guys feel about > this.
Pieter, I'm afraid I don't quite grasp what you mean by a service based model. SFS for SQL is presumably "Simple Features for SQL", is that right? If so, how is that a different data model than simple features? Without my understanding the distinction you are trying to make it is hard to give helpful advice. But I will say that I feel strongly that "in this day and age" any geometry model you use in the geospatial field should have a clean mapping onto OGC Simple Features. You might need to extend it or even put off implementing some types but it would be unwise to take a significantly different approach. Best regards, -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [email protected] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Software Developer _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
