Move Ecto specific code to geo_ecto about geo HOT 7 CLOSED

Ecto.DataType protocol might be an alternative. But not sure how that effects things.

So I guess I'm willing to see Ecto.DataType implemented instead as long as things work as is, or the differences are known and documented

from geo.

@bryanjos the concern I have is when I dont want to GeoJSON as my formatting for example.

Because of this, when you do field :name, Geo.[Type] we will need to have 3 different types for Point because you want to cast it to the correct format, for example.

Geo.JSON.Point, Geo.WKT.Point, Geo.WKB.Point unless we use a generic one that fallbacks back to each formatter (which I would like to not do that).

Unless we roll with just one and create some changesets that transform from on formatting to the other.

Not quite sure what is the best movement here, GeoJSON is perfect if you don't care about saving a bunch of bytes, which for some could be the concern, I guess.

from geo.

I'm not sure I understand what is meant, having three structs for the same type isn't something I'm willing to accept. Unless there is a way to move the ecto-specific code to geo_ecto and keep functionality the same, I would say to keep things the same until a time where it is possible

from geo.

I can do some exploratory work to see if it's possible

from geo.

@bryanjos I dont need 3 different ecto types for each data type but don't forget that some people could be interested in specific formatter over GeoJSON, that is why I am bringing it into the table so we think about it.

from geo.

@yordis I was able to move ecto code to geo_postgis completely

from geo.

@bryanjos amazing job mate! Thanks a lot!

I am super happy to see how clean and lean the project is now 😄

from geo.