Hi Strk, Comments below.
Charlie, example.cpp, *and* unit tests, all keep using the C++ API. SWIG is using the C API instead, so you shouldn't expect things to work in the exactly same way. I would indeed discourage you from porting unit testing and example.cpp but rather find new tests which might be useful for CAPI in general.
Well, maybe you can help then. What I would like is an example of two geometries and what the expected results would be for various operations like union, intersection, etc. That way I can verify that the results returned through the C API are correct.
I guess I don't understand why you think example.cpp is a bad thing to look at. I can see the geometries in their WKT format, and then I can see what the results are when different operations happen like union, etc.
Why would the union of the same two geometries be different depending on whether you use the C API versus the C++ API?
Anyway, I'm happy to use any examples people have. I don't think its viable for me to make up my own examples - I don't know what the results are supposed to look like. Thus the tests would be useless.
The unhappy messages you're seing are in fact very happy ones :) It's the new code handling robustness problems by trying different reduction or simplification. Your logs seems to reveal that a topology preserving simplification with a tolerance of 0.04 did it. Seems nice (you should look at results to actually tell if we like it)...
Sorry, don't understand. Where is this tolerance set in doing a Union? How do I control it through the C API?
And it then end its not happy - the results is a segmentation fault. That of course might be a bug in the SWIG bindings.
Charlie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@geos.refractions.net http://geos.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel
