On 10 November 2015 at 12:11, Jürgen E. <j...@norbit.de> wrote: > On Tue, 10. Nov 2015 at 10:50:57 +0100, Mateusz Loskot wrote: > >> There is, however, cost involved. That is, GEOS does not promise C++ API/ABI >> stability, so those who choose GEOS C++ API should be aware they may need >> to update change their code more frequently. > > Also right - plus that we need to either pick one C++ compiler that works for > everyone (Qt and reverse dependencies currently use 2010 in OSGeo4W - not > 2012), leave some behind or ship a myriad of different packages to suit > everyone.
I see. I'm not particularly experienced with OSGeo4W development issues. >> So, I don't think it's a good idea to forbid the freedom of GEOS API choice, >> especially if it is a choice between officially supported APIs. > > I just stated a preference - and asked whether it is feasible to port OSSIM to > the C-API. Right, certainly, C API is preferred from deployment point. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net _______________________________________________ geos-devel mailing list geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel