I'm +1 on dropping xlink cite compliance for 2.0. I personally think xlink wfs is a silly operation. And don't know that it's even worth spending time on later. 1.7.x can serve as the xlink reference implementation, indeed if we wanted to certify 2.0.x as xlink compliant we'd have to pay.
One thing that would be a nice target for app-schema though is the 'complex feature' tests. GeoServer has never passed them, but app-schema opens the possibility. I think they're actually pretty basic once the app-schema infrastructure is there. Has the app-schema team checked them out? It's a check box when you run the tests. C Justin Deoliveira wrote: > > Andrea Aime wrote: >> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: >>> Ok, looked into the test failures. And bottom line is that the hacks >>> put in place for xlink are tripping over work done by the app-schema >>> folks. Before app-schema was in place i was free to make wild >>> assumptions and hack to high heaven to get things working. But now >>> that certain types and bindings are being used those hacks fall apart. >>> >>> Unfortunately I don't see an easy way forward on this. I could spend >>> time trying to rework my hacks but quite frankly I a) don't have the >>> time right now and b) don't see the point. The xlink "implementation" >>> (if you can call it that) was just an experiment (and in my opinion a >>> premature one) in an OGC test bed. Nobody else as far as i know >>> implements xlink, and i can't think of one client who could possibly >>> be using it. >>> >>> However it has been my intention to get rid of the nasty hacks and >>> replace them with a working app-schema configuration now that we have >>> one. But this is not a trivial piece of work. I spent half a day >>> trying to do so and met limited success, and it required patches to >>> app-schema which were not accepted at the time. >> Interesting. Is the app schema team going to work over xlink support >> anytime soon? Anyone? > Well it is my understanding that theoretically the app-schema > implementation can do all the stuff needed support the xlink cite tests, > but when I tried it out i ran into a few hitches. >>> So I leave it up to the PSC to decide but if it were my call I would >>> say ditch xlink for now until we can get a working app-schema >>> replacement for what is there on 1.7.x. And keep the OGC happy with >>> 1.7.x as their "xlink reference implementation" until that happens. >> I agree with the reasoning. On one side I think we should call a PSC >> vote, on the other side, a PSC vote won't materialize resources by >> magic: if there is no one with the ability to work on this, it won't >> be done, it's as simple as that. (no?) > I know at the app-schema workshop we had back in July working on this > was discussed, but not brought up as a priority. It would be nice to > have though. CITE while often annoying has its uses when it comes to > finding regressions. Plus it would be nice to boast that our complex > features implementation is "cite compliant" >> Soo... opinions? Maybe we should start a separate thread to discuss this. >> >> Cheers >> Andrea >> >> >> PS: does that mean we get remove the code that >> in JdbcDataStore handles geometric association? :-p >> Sorry, could not resist!! > +1 it would be like christmas early this year!! > -- Chris Holmes OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Expert service straight from the developers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry(R) Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9 - 12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconference _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
