Subject | Re: [IB-Architect] Spatial objects in IB |
---|---|
Author | Joseph Alba |
Post date | 2000-03-21T23:37:25Z |
Oracle implements this using "cartridges".
So if you need Spatial, you get a Spatial cartridge. They also have a
ConText cartridge, and another cartridge for storing pictures.
Given this idea, the Interbase community can implement this using
"cartridge" like UDFs which can be installed if you need spatial functions.
Instead of a Spatial cartridge that you install on top of an Oracle
database, we can develop a UDF module that have spatial functions. Like the
Spatial cartridge, this UDF will be an option and does not need to be
incorporated to the core function.
Joseph Alba
jalba@...
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Kemper <mkemper@...>
To: IB-Architect@onelist.com <IB-Architect@onelist.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] Spatial objects in IB
So if you need Spatial, you get a Spatial cartridge. They also have a
ConText cartridge, and another cartridge for storing pictures.
Given this idea, the Interbase community can implement this using
"cartridge" like UDFs which can be installed if you need spatial functions.
Instead of a Spatial cartridge that you install on top of an Oracle
database, we can develop a UDF module that have spatial functions. Like the
Spatial cartridge, this UDF will be an option and does not need to be
incorporated to the core function.
Joseph Alba
jalba@...
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Kemper <mkemper@...>
To: IB-Architect@onelist.com <IB-Architect@onelist.com>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:02 AM
Subject: Re: [IB-Architect] Spatial objects in IB
>From: "Markus Kemper" <mkemper@...>Also,
>
>> I don't think that adding functions to the core engine will slow it.
>> in a 1 mega library you can add a lot of functionalities.implemented
>
>I agree but, I think that one of our strengths in the market
>is footprint and that we ought to be careful when adding things
>that will grow it.
>
>> I think it is a bit too early to discuss what features should be
>> in the next version but I am among the ones who want more functions inthe
>> core engine because adding " not well known " third parties UDFs can beseen
>> a bit like risky assembly.
>
>I disagree. Now is a great time to start taking about these
>things. 6.0 is in stone from a feature perspective. Let's
>start shaping the future.
>
>RE: UDFs vs core functions
>
>I think there is a balance here. I'd like to see more 'basic'
>functions in the engine. My top 10 (in order) are:
>
> str_to_blob()
> blob_to_str()
> sub_str()
> r_trim()
> sqrt()
> l_trim()
> str_len()
> trim()
> lower()
> round()
>
>> Don't you think that people would prefer a functionnality be implemented
>> by Interbase rather than by a company they never heard of before ?
>
>Perhaps we could encourage projects in the community to
>develop targeted open source UDF libraries (eg. math, spatial,
>multi-media, encryption, etc.) and InterBase Corp could
>certify, endorse and support them officially.
>
>Markus
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
>http://click.egroups.com/1/2377/3/_/_/_/953676940/
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>IB-Architect-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
>