On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:37:40PM -0600, Howard Butler wrote:
> Now, if you were an an Real American (TM) like me, you would have no
> problem voting unknowledgeably. Vetos have the consequences in GEOS'
> governance, not +1's :)
> I wonder if maybe we shouldn't put the threadsafe API in it
On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Martin Davis wrote:
I agree. Some parts of the JTS API are not reentrant, and I'm not
sure if this got transferred to GEOS. And I have no idea what other
non-reentrant things might have crept in.
Since I can't vote knowledgeably, I will simply abstain. (Like a
I agree. Some parts of the JTS API are not reentrant, and I'm not sure
if this got transferred to GEOS. And I have no idea what other
non-reentrant things might have crept in.
Since I can't vote knowledgeably, I will simply abstain. (Like a good
Canadian...)
strk wrote:
On Mon, Nov 03, 2
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 01:15:15PM -0800, Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Reference is here:
> http://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC3
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> Martin, Matz, Howard, Gary, Dale, votez!
For what is worth, I think Chuck has a point in not willing
to advertise reentrancy if not verified.
The de
Mark,
Here are the diff files - I used a primitive version of diff, so hope the
formatting is OK.
I managed to run autogen.sh with the latest SVN build - the problem was they
were in DOS not Unix line format for some reason. The following build wasn't
successful(with the same error), so hopef
#215: Single-sided buffering implementation
-+--
Reporter: swongu | Owner: geos-devel@lists.osgeo.org
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major| Milestone:
Reference is here:
http://trac.osgeo.org/geos/wiki/RFC3
Looks good to me.
Martin, Matz, Howard, Gary, Dale, votez!
P
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Chuck Thibert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Didn't want to crowd the list while the 3.0 stuff was heavy. Seems to
> have calmed down
Hi all,
Didn't want to crowd the list while the 3.0 stuff was heavy. Seems to
have calmed down a bit.
I haven't had any more comments on the RFC (could be because of the 3.0
stuff mentioned above...) and I'm wondering if it's ready for voting? I
don't want to jump the gun and start coding only t
