Subject: Re: [geometry] Changes in WKB (read) behaviour proposal
From: Mats Taraldsvik (mats.taraldsvik_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-29 16:32:30
On 11/26/2013 12:50 PM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> On 16 November 2013 20:26, Mats Taraldsvik <mats.taraldsvik_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On 11/07/2013 11:35 AM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
>>> On 4 November 2013 20:31, Mats Taraldsvik <mats.taraldsvik_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> However, as this might be easy to mix up, I'd vote for the length check I
>>>> have implemented.
>>> IMHO, we should try to keep the WKB parser conforming to the OGC spec.
>>> Later, based on WKB work, we can make a separate parser for EWKB format
>>> which would be similar but different.
>>> So, also based on what I explained earlier in thsi post,
>>> my advise would be to try to make use of the metadata in WKB.
>>> But please don't feel like I'm trying to reject your efforts, which
>>> n.b. I greatly appreciate. Please, treat my words as technical
>>> discussion/advise only.
>>> If your current implementation does the job for common cases, let's
>>> accept it into Boost.Geometry. Then, we can (I can) make another
>>> iteration improving it to rely on WKB metadata and to ensure it's OGC
>>> WKB compliant.
>> As stated earlier in my reply, I have removed the proposed checks, to rely
>> on static information instead. I guess it will be more efficient, and we
>> want an efficient WKB parser :)
> Yes, thanks :)
>> I have implemented tests and support for MultiLinestring and MultiPolygon as
>> well, and updated https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/9066 with a patch
>> formatted according to your instructions.
> Your patch looks very good, all compiles and tests for me.
> I have polished a few minor things, added Jamfiles and re-generated fresh
> complete patch as complete-extensions-gis-io-wkb-with-multi.patch
> I will request others to vote for inclusion into the extensions.
> We may need to wait a bit until Boost migration to Git/GitHub is completed,
> as the SVN repository is now being closed for commits.
>> The next step might be to handle Z, M and ZM geometries.
>> We need to add the new types in ogc.hpp. The geometry_type_parser needs to
>> change. I already removed the multipolygon-check, but the current bitwise
>> AND trick does not work -- as far as I can tell -- with pointz (1000) etc.
>> Also, all the geometry_type-checks in *_parser needs to handle multiple
>> types (point, pointz, pointm, pointzm).
> Here I'd have a comment about the bitmask used in
> geometry_type_parser to filter out non-OGC bits:
> boost::uint32_t id = value & 0xff;
> (I added TODO comment to the parser.hpp file as well).
> As I was indicating earlier, if we want to move deeper to support both OGC WKB
> and PostGIS EWKB, I'd vote for splitting the WKB parser into two:
> WKB - for pure OGC WKB
> EWKB25D - for so called WKB2.5 which is extended version of WKB that was
> submitted before OGC added 3D support
> The 2.5D variation is quite common indeed, in PostGIS, GDAL/OGR, and many other
> software packages, so it's worth to have it.
> For pure OGC WKB, we don't need any bits flipping but just simple arithmetic for
> combinations of
> OGC 18 basic types (codes from 0 to 17) and
> coordinate dimensionality variants: Z, M, ZM,
> The dimensionality only affects how we parse tuples of coordinates.
> It does not affect parsing of structure of geometries.
> What do you (and others who are interested) think about the idea of
> splitting parsers?
I'm all for splitting the parsers as long as it
- does not duplicate (parser) code
- is easy to extend
Perhaps making (ogc) geometry_type e.g. a collection of static functions
returning uint32_ts instead of an enum would make it easy to reuse in
both WKB,EWKB and WKB2.5, and extend by users?
A scenario I would really like to support, which works very well in the
WKT parser, is to be able to extend the parser with minimal effort as a
An example is a user extending WKB to support reading and writing WKB
Circularstring to/from (represented as) a boost::geometry linestring
concept with minimal effort. She would not be able to use the
algorithms, as the circularstring is represented by a linestring
datastructure, but she would be able to leverage boost geometry's WKB
reading and writing for this purpose with minimal effort.
>> Perhaps, after this, we add the feature to gracefully handle e.g. a 2d
>> linestring read from a 3d linestring WKB.
> Sure, good idea.
> Best regards,
Geometry list run by mateusz at loskot.net