On Tue, 10 Dec 2019 at 06:13, Nyall Dawson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi list, > > I just read this comment on the Pitney Bowes pull request regarding > extended tab/mrr support: > > "After discussing with the GDAL PSC, we will be splitting this into > two separate PRs for the two drivers. We will also be following the > plugin model for both EFAL and MRR format driver." > (https://github.com/OSGeo/gdal/pull/1882#issuecomment-563807100) > > Can anyone from gdal psc elaborate on this?
I can't give authoritative explanation myself - I'm only aware of the public conversations on GitHub, Twitter and gdal-dev > Why were they advised to > follow the plugin model instead of doing the "right thing" and > extending the existing tab driver? Presumably, the piece of advice PB received was a (natural) consequence of what they wrote in the description of their PR: "They only load if the respective SDK's are present. These SDK's are free to download (...)" It means, if GDAL driver requires a binary SDK, then natural choice is to develop such driver as a plug-in. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
