Re: Swig Update and questions

Okay,

> I'd highly appreciate a combined effort on the binding.
> I think the best would be SWIG/CAPI, bearing with SWIG version
> found on debian stable.

I've got the SWIG bindings working with the C API.  I did it by 
"faking" classes like in GDAL.  I also implemented a simple geometry 
hierarchy of point, line, etc. based on the geometry type id.  Its seems 
to work well.

As far as the SWIG version, my guess (and based on a quick google 
search) is that Debian stable is using an ancient version.  We really 
want to stick with the latest SWIG (1.3.29) version because of two big 
reasons:

*  it means the majority of the SWIG interface files can be used for 
Python and Ruby.  It also means if someone like Ari wanted to add in a 
Perl binding it wouldn't be too hard.

* older versions of Ruby SWIG could not handle giving up ownership of 
objects (like when passing a coordinate sequence to a geometry 
constructor) which is a must have for GEOS.

Note that GDAL is also using SWIG 1.3.29.

Sean / Hobu - If you send me the API exposed by your custom bindings I 
can align the SWIG bindings with them as much as possible.

Strk - Guidance would be appreciated on my emails about threading and 
error messages and the various fixes/proposed changes to the C API.

What needs to be done:

*  A couple more hours of implementation

*  A few days of tests - I see the new test suite for the C++ api, I 
just plan on porting it to Ruby (great work Mateusz)

* Probably a day more of messing around with the build scripts

I plan on doing this stuff during the course of this week.

Thanks,

Charlie

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
geos-devel mailing list
geos-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://geos.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/geos-devel