On 07/12/2010 12:53 PM, Gabriel Roldan wrote:
> On 7/12/10 4:52 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
>    
>> Gabriel Roldan ha scritto:
>>      
>>> On 7/9/10 5:25 PM, Andreas Hocevar wrote:
>>>        
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> just a quick note to let you know that proj4js can do lazy loading of
>>>> crs definitions.
>>>>
>>>> But I doubt that we will be using projections other than 900913 in
>>>> the map viewers, because 900913 is our only option if we want to use
>>>> Google layers (and OSM if we don't want to provide our own tileset).
>>>>          
>>> But there may be the case that the user doesn't care about google layers
>>> nor OSM ones, he just want to use data from his municipality's WMS, but
>>> the WMS doesn't support 900913. If GeoNode doesn't support the CRS the
>>> data is published in, then he can't use the data at all. Then GeoNode is
>>> useless.
>>>        
>> A bit of self promotion: GeoServer 2.1 can do WMS cascading and handles
>> reprojection transparently, doing the necessary negotiation and
>> reprojecting on the fly if necessary.
>> It works for GetFeatureInfo as well
>>
>> Now, I understand that from where you are today, to having to configure
>> GS as a cascading  WMS for all remote layers and moving GeoNode to GS
>> 2.1 is quite, is a long stretch.
>>
>>      
> As a matter of fact that's the first thing I thought when faced the
> problem of not being able to add my municipality layers. But besides
> being tied to 2.0.x, I'm not sure if we'd want to direct all traffic to
> our geoserver instance. But it's still an option.
>
>    
>> Just sharing an option ;-)
>>      
> thanks :)
>    
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>      

How does GeoServer's cascading WMS work?  Would we expect degradation 
due to warping of the tiles instead of re-rendering in the target 
projection?  If there are visual artifacts then I expect we would want 
to use this only as a fall-back option regardless of performance concerns.

We are already discussing having GeoNode cache all remote WMS layers in 
GeoWebCache, so I don't think that it would especially burdensome 
(development-wise) to have it cascade them all in GeoServer as well.  At 
least, let's not strike it from the realm of possibility too hastily.

--
David Winslow
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/

Reply via email to