Chris Holmes ha scritto: ... > Personally I don't see a huge reason to try to commit to backwards > compatibility with the 1.7.x rest api and the 2.0.x rest api. Don't get > me wrong, it'd be super nice. But if we are doing a major version > change we do have the luxury of breaking apis if we need to. Clients > should not expect that a 2.0 version of the product will have a > completely backwards compatible api. > > Of course I do think our design of a rest api should not be tightly > coupled to how we make our catalog - it should be independent concepts > ideally. But realistically this is our first attempt, and though it's > not bad we'll probably see how we can improve it. Since we are moving > to 2.0 we do have the chance to 'throw one away', and make a really nice > one for 2.0.
Just one observation. From the roadmap it seems we won't have resource/map split in 2.0. At the moment layers are published on: /layers/<l>[.<format>] but when we push on the separation and make maps (virtual geoservers with a limited set of layers), they will be probably put into: <map>/<l>[.<format>] This kind of change will occur most likely in some 2.x.y release, depending one when resource to actually develop it become available. So we'll probably break the rest API, but (I guess) not in 2.0.0 Cheers Andrea -- Andrea Aime OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
