Opened 14 years ago
Closed 9 years ago
#3749 closed enhancement (wontfix)
split of gdal_misc.cpp
Reported by: | barendgehrels | Owned by: | warmerdam |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | default | Version: | unspecified |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | gdal, org |
Cc: |
Description
(Copied from email):
I spent some time to build a Visual Studio project again for OGR (I had done that before). It is not included in the distribution (besides a solution containing makefiles), but to develop and debug things I prefer to have a proper VS (express) solution. This time it was harder than last time (~2 years ago) because there is now a dependancy on GDAL, which I solved by splitting one file (gdal_misc) into two. In case there is interest in this, I can contribute the splitted file and solution. However, the usage of Visual Studio solutions will be limited because it has no (easy) mechanism to include or exclude parts (e.g. postgis, mysql, etc) depending on some settings. I now just have shapefile/bna support included and (for the moment) nothing more.
Anyway, if the gdal_misc.cpp could be splitted by default, I would be thankful for that.
(new:) It is probably the best to split it into three files, for example: gdal_progress.cpp containing the progress functionality gdal_version_info.cpp gdal_misc.cpp
I've attached the new gdal_misc1.cpp (containing progress and version info only)
Attachments (1)
Change History (3)
by , 14 years ago
Attachment: | gdal_misc1.cpp added |
---|
comment:1 by , 9 years ago
comment:2 by , 9 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
GDAL progress callback has been moved some time ago into port/cpl_progress.h/cpp. But I'm not sure to understand why splitting a file makes debugging easier, and now with the GDAL/OGR unification, that is no longer relevant.
An opinion from developers needed. Would it be a good thing to do the suggested split?