On 12 March 2017 at 19:23, G. Allegri <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Sebastiaan for raising this point. It's clear that if (SF)CGAL was > somehow introduced inside the core it would need maintanance. > > Nyall, I agree with you. CGAL shouldn't overlap GEOS, even if its robustness > (infinite precision) can make the difference. > The real benefits would arise if/when QGIS will want to widen its SQL/MM > geometries. TINs, polyhedral surfaces, or simply 3D predicates considering > the z coordinate in 2.5D geoms.
Good point. Something I forgot to add in my original reply - instead of investing time into utilising CGAL instead of GEOS, I'd rather see us investigate swapping out GEOS calls to Boost::geometry calls. The boost geometry algorithms are really nicely implemented, and their interface avoids the need to convert between different object types (ie QgsGeometry->GEOS). This could potentially be a big performance/memory usage win. Nyall _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
