Base class for Shapes?

[Daniel Calvelo Aros]

What I would find excellent to have in memory is a topological
version of the shapestore. I have been trying to implement cartogram
drawing, which involves polygon transformations that must keep e.g. adjacency.
So far I have been quite frustrated by the need to build
the topology anyway. If shape editing is implemented in any timeframe,
topology will be necessary.

Maybe some GRASS "inspiration" might be useful.

-- Daniel Calvelo Aros

PS. And properly implementing Jenks-Caspall classification needs
(a mild, less stringent) topology as well.

---------- Original Message -----------
From: Jan-Oliver Wagner <jan at intevation.de>
To: Thuban Developer Mailing List <thuban-devel at intevation.de>
Sent: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:49:26 +0100
Subject: Base class for Shapes?

> Hi,
> 
> on a train travel from Bonn to Osnabrück
> I worked out an idea about a Base Shape Class.
> See the attached patch.
> 
> The idea is that we might want to have Shapes/Shapestores
> that are kept in memory instead in a file in order
> have a opportunity to create/modify them with arbitrary
> algorithms implemented in Thuban(or in its extensions).
> 
> The idea is taken from a large Thuban Extension on precision
> farming developed by Ole Rahn.
> 
> This class "Shape" would also be a first step to redruce
> the code in that extension. Ongoing steps would be to introduce
> a MemoryShapeStore with ability to store it as a Shapefile.
> 
> What I want to know is whether this idea is a sensible way to
> go or not. Any feedback welcome.
> 
> Ah, and: this can even be ported back to 1_0 ;-)
> 
> Best
> 
> 	Jan
> -- 
> Jan-Oliver Wagner               http://intevation.de/~jan/
> 
> Intevation GmbH                      http://intevation.de/
> FreeGIS                                http://freegis.org/
------- End of Original Message -------