Just to chime in on this specific point: My personal opinion is to have geoserver be "headless" in the sense that a configuration/UI program is required but completely seperate from the "server" portion of geoserver. They could be distributed together (err, a "web UI" could be distributed along with geoserver) but I'm personally really interested in developing a non web ui to geoserver...specifically a command-line based UI that would be much more scriptable and automatable.
I'd say chuck the web toolkit discussion over to the "web-ui" module and just go with straight restlet for the REST framework that really runs geoserver. Of course, I expect that I'm pretty far outside the consensus on this one! --saul > What do people think about having the a REST api at the same level as > the configuration user interface; ie something that is optional and not > required for GeoServer to run? For me they are slightly different > flavours of the same idea... > > Jody > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
