[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libredwg] [news] Autodesk and Open Design Alliance Reach Agreement

From: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [libredwg] [news] Autodesk and Open Design Alliance Reach Agreement for Autodesk DWG Trademarks
Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 23:52:08 +0200

I made good progress.
The wrapper api is now printing out the function calls,
I added comments to the source code to document how often they are called.
from this I will create a simpler set of classes/methods to emit to libredwg for the important methods.

I don't need to implement all of the methods that are called, some are (most are) just a waste.
The main ones are for emitting points, adding points to a line etc.

The implementation for libredwg will be behind my new set of simple classes so that there is no direct connection between the directdwg code and the libredwg code.

So it will look like this

OGR --> DirectDWG API :: InDirectDWGWrapper -> SimpleLibreDWGAPI :: libredwg

where :: represents the implementation of an API and -> represents the calling of the methods.


On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:31 PM, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
I am going to continue work on the gdal ogr code. via the directdwg layer.
I think it will be great to have a compatible api.

if you have any legal issues with what I am doing, please tell me.

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 06-05-2010 12:10, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>> I personally
>> think the DWGdirect API is fairly clumsy and large and it would not
>> necessarily be a good idea to tie to it.
> I agree. I've been dealing with a dwg import plugin on GRASS that uses
> DWGDirect. I am porting it to LibreDWG. It is fairly simple (it imports
> lines, polylines, circles and blocks/inserts), but I had a lot of work to
> move it to the LibreDWG API - which is a lot easier to use.
> I think we should not rely on DWGDirect's API, but a compatibility layer
> that would make migration to LibreDWG easier would be welcome if there
> aren't any copyright issues. We should check with the FSF lawyers before
> commiting that to savannah.
> --
> Rodrigo Rodrigues da Silva
> GNU LibreDWG maintainer
> FSF Associate Member #7788
> PoliGNU - Grupo de Estudos de Software Livre da Poli/USP

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]