Hi Markus, 2012/6/6 Markus Metz <[email protected]>:
first of all, thanks for the quick review! > I find the newly introduced level 3 for topology confusing because 1) > level 3 could sometime in the future mean 3D topology, 2) level 3 > applies only to PostGIS. Before that change, the open level had the > same meaning independent of the vector format (GRASS, PGR, PostGIS). right. > The open level is important for modules, and for modules it does not > matter if topology is pseudo-topology or PostGIS topology or true > GRASS topology. Modules only check if topology is available or not, > but are and should not be interested in what kind of topology is > available. This should be handled by the vector libs. I would Sounds reasonable to me. > therefore prefer to keep the two open levels and rather have a flag in > struct Format_info_pg indicating whether this map is opened with > pseudo-topology or PostGIS topology. It's already there (pg_info->toposchema_name). I was worried about introducing level 3 in this sense, you just made me sure, that it was not a good idea. I will revert it back to the two levels (keep level 3 for 3D topology). Martin -- Martin Landa <landa.martin gmail.com> * http://geo.fsv.cvut.cz/~landa _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
