Re: [boost] Another GGL review

Subject: Re: [boost] Another GGL review
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-11-17 14:17:07

Jonathan Franklin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Jose <jmalv04_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> In my opinion, a good r-tree implementation is necessary. I have no
>> experience with the above library but I've seen other code from this
>> author to be of high quality.
> 
> For the purposes of my own review, I'm trying to decide whether I
> think the library should be accepted without a spatial index.  Would
> anyone like to sway my opinion one way or the other?
> :-)

Personally I don't think that is a reasonable condition.  If I were managing the review I would discount such an objection as unreasonable.  Implementing a good 2D spatial index that is correct and competitively fast and memory efficient is 9 months of work.  I won't go into all that is required.  Implementing a spatial index that is merely correct and sufficiently generic is probably one month of work (design, implementation, test, documentation) for a very experience developer working without distractions.  These estimates should be considered optimistic, as most such estimates are.  Hastily adding a spatial index implemented by someone else might be ill advised.  If the original author does not choose to maintain the code it is a big risk.  I would prefer that a 2d spatial index in boost be competitively fast.  Demonstrating that will be as challenging and subjective as demonstrating performance for the boolean operations.  I think it would be reasonable to let a generic 2d spatial index data structure be reviewed as a stand alone library when someone has one they feel is ready for boost.

Regards,
Luke