Hey Chris, Chris Holmes wrote: > So in 2.0 we've got this new concept of 'workspaces' that are a bit > transitional. > > Before 2.0 the only way to group featureTypes was with namespaces. > > In 2.1 we should have a full resource publishing split, with a strong > concept of workspaces as collections of layers. Each workspace should > have its own capabilities document, its own set of permissions, etc. Not quite, I think you may be confusing the concept of workspace and map, as the current design has it. In the current design, post 2.1 workspaces are nothing more than a way to group data stores. The main purpose of which is to avoid datastore and feature type name clashes.
Each "map" will have its own capabilities document. A map being just a container for layers, each layer being backed by a resource. I agree that the terminology is confusing. I would be open to better names. > > In 2.0 we basically just decided that 'namespaces' (particularly > namespace prefixes) are equivalent to 'workspaces'. I think this is > trying to squeeze too many concepts in to one. We generally want > namespace prefixes to be pretty short, ideally 3-4 characters. But we > have no good way of hinting to people that they should probably use > shorter names for their workspaces. This was done purely to maintain backwards compatibility. Without this assumption we would not really be able to have the concept of a workspace in 2.0, and i thought the middleground for now with the assumption would be a more gradual upgrade path that just introducing the workspace concept for 2.1. Perhaps not. > > What I'd like to propose is that a 'workspace' consist of three things: > * A title > * A short name > * A URI > > The title is used in the UI, and also in capabilities reporting on > service information. > > The short name is used for the namespace prefix, and in the url, like in > the rest API. > > The URI is for the namespace, what the prefix points to. If people > don't fill it out we'll default it to like > http://geoserver.org/shortname or something. > > The short name will have a character limit (I'd say 5 or 6), and if the > title is not filled out then short name will just be used. > > What do people think? I'm not saying we need to get it in 2.0.x, but > it's worth thinking about. A title and short name sure, but URI I don't agree. A workspace in any way being associated with a namespace URI is just a short term hack. I don't think we want to introduce this concept for the long term. > > I bring it up because I think we're trying to squeeze too much in to the > 'workspace'. The "squeeze" is temporary. Once namespace moves to just an attribute of a layer, and not a container for data the notion of a workspace becomes quite simple, it is just a folder more or less. > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
