On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 06:30:59PM -0600, Charlie Savage wrote: > > > >It's not silly if it makes the SWIG bindings easier to maintain. > > Agreed. Except the gdal bindings are harder to maintain in some ways > due to the duplication of code. > > Anyway, the difference in this case is that the GDAL object model is not > as rich as in GEOS. GDAL just exposes "geometry" as opposed to point, > line, etc.
This is what GEOS wants to do as well. > I think this boils down to three major decisions about the SWIG bindings > that need to be agreed on: > > 1. What geometry model do clients work with? Just geometry or geometry, > point, line, etc. Clients should only work with the C api, unless willing to follow API revolutions for a couple of years. > 2. What compatibility benefits does the C api provide beyond the > benefits of the generated swig bindings? The C interface will be careful maintained binary compatible between versions. > 3. How much of GEOS's api gets exposed to clients? The smallest possible. Ideally none :) The GEOS API *is* the C-API, previous releases were insane in exposing that wide C++ interface. --strk; _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@geos.refractions.net http://geos.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
