Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implementation of new flex backend #1037

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 7, 2020
Merged

Conversation

joto
Copy link
Collaborator

@joto joto commented Dec 19, 2019

This PR introduces a new flex backend, see #1036 for the ideas behind this.

If you want to try this: Compile as usual, Lua support must be enabled. Then run osm2pgsql with -O flex and -S some-config.lua. Docs in docs/flex.md. Look into flex-config directory for some example config/style files with inline documentation. Start with simple.lua.

This PR more or less resolves the following issues: #109, #153, #230, #277, #328, #573, #677, #734, #901

In addition this PR impacts the following issues: #107, #328, #768

@joto joto force-pushed the flex-backend branch 3 times, most recently from d21f230 to dbf5919 Compare December 22, 2019 15:12
@joto joto force-pushed the flex-backend branch 10 times, most recently from 1437cb1 to 8b14c67 Compare January 11, 2020 20:31
@joto joto force-pushed the flex-backend branch 4 times, most recently from 893ec7a to 541a97d Compare January 13, 2020 20:12
@joto joto mentioned this pull request Jan 14, 2020
@joto joto force-pushed the flex-backend branch 3 times, most recently from 63b5380 to fb3763a Compare January 16, 2020 06:14
@lonvia
Copy link
Collaborator

lonvia commented Jan 18, 2020

I've looked through the code and this looks good for a first experimental implementation. There might be room for consolidation with the existing code but I don't think it's worth doing that before the interface of the output is stable.

I would suggest to mark this as experimental and merge this in its current state. This makes it easier for people to test the new output and also means that we can have smaller PRs with further improvements. @pnorman what do you think?

@joto can you please add the flex output to the existing READMEs with a big fat warning that this is experimental and the API might change without notice.

appveyor.yml Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@joto joto force-pushed the flex-backend branch 3 times, most recently from ebeaa03 to cc9748f Compare January 25, 2020 20:21
@pnorman
Copy link
Collaborator

pnorman commented Jan 26, 2020

I would suggest to mark this as experimental and merge this in its current state. This makes it easier for people to test the new output and also means that we can have smaller PRs with further improvements. @pnorman what do you think?

I'm okay with this.

docs/flex.md Show resolved Hide resolved
@joto joto changed the title Work-in-progress implementation of new flex backend Implementation of new flex backend Jan 31, 2020
This introduces a new "flex" backend which allows much more flexibility
in choosing the database format and the transformation from OSM data to
the database format. The user defines all this in a Lua script.
@jeisenbe
Copy link

jeisenbe commented Feb 9, 2020

Thank you, this looks very useful. Will this be part of an official release soon?

@lonvia
Copy link
Collaborator

lonvia commented Feb 9, 2020

It will be part of the next release but I cannot give an ETA on that. We need some more testing (and more tests). So, the more people try out the master branch or volunteer tests, the sooner the release. ;)

@joto joto deleted the flex-backend branch February 9, 2020 13:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants