Hi All,

Okay I've just done a big OWSLib commit and merged all the code from the 
soswfsbranch into the trunk.

http://trac.gispython.org/lab/changeset/1317

One of the CSW tests (csw_devgeo.txt) is failing. Also I couldn't find any 
tests for SOS - Tom, do you have any code you can convert into a doctest?

Also I agree with Sean that we probably need to have an interface sanity 
check - I haven't really paid any attention to it during this merge.

Cheers
Dom


On Wednesday 08 July 2009 18:01:50 Kralidis,Tom [Ontario] wrote:
> I say let's release and get it out there.
>
> ..Tom
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] on behalf of Sean Gillies
> Sent: Wed 08-Jul-09 05:42
> To: gispython.org community projects
> Subject: Re: [Community] OWSLib release strategy?
>
> On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Dominic Lowe wrote:
> > Hi all, especially OWSLib commiters,
> >
> > There's a lot of new stuff that has gone into OWSLib recently  -
> > some of it is
> > in the trunk and some is lurking in a branch yet to be merged with
> > the trunk.
> > Most of it is still work in progress.
> >
> > In the trunk recent additions include:
> >
> > * CSW support
> > * ISO 19115 metadata parsing (needed for CSW support I assume)
> > * Several improvements to WCS support (caching, url checking)
> > * OWSCommon classes to share between services
> > * A general Utils module for common functions
> >
> > In branches/soswfsbranch there is also:
> > * Support for WFS "2.0" (IS019142)
> > * Support for SOS (sensor observation service)
> >
> >
> > My preference would be to merge soswfsbranch into the trunk sooner
> > rather than
> > later to prevent divergence - however this leaves the trunk with a lot
> > of 'alpha' code in it (WFS2/SOS/CSW), compared to the more mature
> > WMS/WFS1
> > and WCS support.
> >
> > What do people think about this?
> >
> > Should we just accept that some of the services are better supported
> > than
> > others and release them all anyway, say as OWSLib version 3.5 or 4.0 ?
> >
> > Or should we just carry on as is in the trunk without a new release
> > - the
> > downside being that improvements/patches such as the WCS patches
> > don't get
> > released onto Pypi  for a while.
> >
> > Or should be make an effort to branch off code into stable and
> > unstable
> > branches and move modules across individually when 'ready' (whatever
> > ready
> > means)?
> >
> > Or should we perhaps package some things within OWSlib as
> > experimental modules
> > e.g. "owslib.experimental.sos" and move them across when 'ready'.
> >
> > There are pros and cons to each of these. Are there other options we
> > should
> > consider?
> >
> > My preference is to take the simple option and put everything in the
> > trunk and
> > put out a new release with the caveat that some services are better
> > developed
> > than others.  Of course we'd need to run the tests and creating new
> > ones
> > where needed.
> >
> > My concern about having stable and unstable branches and therefore
> > waiting for
> > code to be 'finished' is that we don't have much development effort
> > on this
> > project - a few people do a bit here and there but only as time
> > allows. I'm
> > not sure things will ever be finished as such, just improved upon. I
> > think
> > the incremental approach is therefore going to suit the project
> > better.
> >
> > If something is really unstable then yes it should probably be in a
> > branch
> > temporarily, but I think the default approach should be to get code
> > into the
> > trunk (and version released) sooner rather than later.
> >
> > Anyway, it's up for discussion, what do others think?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dom
>
> I'm +1 with an incremental approach and getting code into the trunk
> quickly.
>
> Another release strategy to consider is to make owslib a namespace
> package, and separately distribute owslib.wms, owslib.wfs, etc.
>
> Before we make more releases, let's revisit the interfaces that Dom
> and I came up with (interfaces.py) and make sure the SOS and CSW stuff
> implement them. The interfaces themselves may need some adjustment to
> accomodate.
>
> Sean
>
> --
> Sean Gillies
> Software Engineer
> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World
> New York University
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community


_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Reply via email to