← Back to team overview

maria-developers team mailing list archive

Re: [Spatial] On current implementation approach


On 25 September 2013 19:27, Alexey Botchkov <holyfoot@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Yes, but my question is not really about location of computational
>> geometry
>> bits, but about the data management: SQL data type for geometry objects,
>> input/output routines.
> That what i meant. That code do not use any Field data structures.


>> 1. Field is the only place that defines GEOMETRY type (and there is no
>> CREATE TYPE support)
> For the Field the GEOMETRY is just the string of bytes.


>> 2. UDF prototypes will use of GEOMETRY in their prototypes to declare
>> input/output parameters
>> then I couldn't understand how it is possible to remove geometry
>> definitions from Field
>> and other internal definitions.
> That what i guess i missed in your question.
> Yes if we remove the GEOMETRY from the server, there's no way to specify the
> GEOMETRY type for the UDF. Though instead we can specify strings as
> parameters and treat them as GEOMETRY inside.

That completes the whole picture for me, thanks for the clarifications.

Best regards,
Mateusz  Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
"Participation in this whole process is a form of torture" ~~ Szalony