> Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 11:46:35 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gdal-dev] RFC 46 GDAL/OGR unification adopted and commited > > Selon Mateusz <[email protected]>: > > I'd rather see frmts/mixed/XXXXX if XXXXX is a single driver that can return > both raster and vector content. > If you have a XXXXX (GeoRaster) and YYYYYY (OGR OCI) drivers that use common > code but remain separate, I'd say you can have frmts/raster/XXXXX and > frmts/vector/YYYYY and make one of them include headers from the other one. > Like
That is fine. That will be just a matter of adding some -I include path. > it has been done up to now. Well if you want it to be cleaner, you could have > frmts/common/oracle and put in there the common code. However, if they are > plugins and not build-in driver, you should however make sure that both > drivers > are bundled in the same shared object. I don't think that will be necessary. I mean, the /common folder. But let me through another idea, if you don't mind. What if the folder under /frmts where organized by software/company name, not by container? BTW, that is what I did on my first GDAL driver, I used the software name not the format or driver name as the folder name. IMHO there is no need for /vector, /raster or /mixed sub-folder. It really doesn't matter if a driver is mixed or not, in terms of folder structure. That should be dictated by the code. Inside the software/company sub-folder, the developer could organize folder names in the anyway they want, as long as there is a main makefile to be called. Or maybe not even that, because a driver could be plugin-only. Inside that folder you could have one, two, three or more drivers, mixed or not. And we could still have formats independent from software/companies seating on the /frmts folder just like he have now. Would that be too much freedom? Would make it more organized or messier? Like I said before, I am fine with what you proposed. I am just giving some ideas. I am not concerned about "my two drivers" but about the health of the overall GDAL code. My best regards, Ivan > > > > On 27 May 2014 01:24, Ivan Lucena <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What I am most interested is to have two driver > > > (that uses the same data container) sharing a little bit of code. > > > [...] > > > In my case I would like to have a folder structure to keep my two driver > > > under the same folder. > > > > > > Something like that: > > > > > > /frmts/container/ > > > /frmts/container/vector > > > /frmts/container/raster > > > > > > But that idea doesn't help with your concern about a large number of > > > sub-folders under /frmts. > > > > Ivan, > > > > You've touched an important issues - sharing of code between drivers that > > connect to the same data provider. > > > > My understanding is that drivers like Oracle or PostGIS would have the > > following structure: > > > > /frmts/mixed/oracle > > /frmts/mixed/postgis > > > > I'm not sure if I've grasped the idea well though. > > > > Best regards, > > -- > > Mateusz Åoskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net > >
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
