> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 04:28:05PM -0500, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I'd like propose to effectively revert the RFC 6:
> >
> > https://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC9
> >
> > I'll appreciate if the PSC members considered to review my proposal
> > and arranged the voting.
> >
> > Although I've made my best to prepare the write short, clear and
> > unambiguous proposal, I'll welcome your feedback.
> Excuse me, maybe I lost some changes, but the C++ API was still available
> public API. RFC6 was never implemented, as not passed.
> The only change related to the mentioned mailing list thread, that I'm
> of, is commit aae36582e743505c863c5767e5989da48f84d5a6,
> which introduced a compiler WARNING emitted (togheter with instructions on
> how to hush it) when _building_ applications using the C++ API of GEOS.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong
> REF: https://git.osgeo.org/gitea/geos/geos/commit/aae36582e
> --strk;
[Regina Obe] 
I always assumed that's what we were arguing about the actual commit.

But the RFC 6 - went back and forth back and forth -
https://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC6  -- so it needs to be rewritten a bit
to reflect the actual reality and probably just passed to minimize on

I even thought Mat was on board with the change when we discussed a year and
half ago:


But was hung up on the words -- DEPRECATE   which we did not use.  We used
"GEOS C++ API is unstable" which Mat thought was so intuitively obvious to
not be worthy of mention in any mode in which any developer would be forced
to read it to proceed.

FWIW I think Greg's comments were more "here's the points"  with much less
emotion than we've exhibited the past couple of days.
I don't know if we should provide a link with a long drawn out discussion of
why you should or should not use the C++ API?  (Like is GEOS C++ API for
you?) as it does make a lot of sense to use in many circumstances.


geos-devel mailing list

Reply via email to