Hi Jody & Andrea,
Thanks to both of you for taking the time to reply. Much appreciated J
I fully understand the reasoning behind GeoServer’s application architecture –
very sensible and obviously very efficient.
Our logical architecture is designed to split channel functionality (such as
B2B and B2C interfaces) from business logic and data access. Due to our (some
would argue overly) complex physical network architecture (with outer and inner
DMZ), components cannot communicate with each other if they are not in the
correct part of the network. My original idea (and the reason behind the
question) was the hope that the services offered by GeoServer, such as WFS and
WMS, could be offered on the outer layer (channel) and the data access and
customisation could be offered on the inner layer (business logic and data).
Obviously this was more pie-in-the-sky than actual design, but it was worth a
shot ;-)
We now have a way around this… but thanks again for taking the time to reply.
I’m sure I’ll have more questions in the future ;-)
Thanks,
Dave Ankers
ESG Architecture, Information Systems
Land Registry, Seaton Court, Plymouth, PL6 5WS, UK
x: 64635
t: 0300 0064635
e: [email protected]
From: Jody Garnett [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 15 February 2011 12:35
To: Ankers, David
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] Splitting the atom... (or just the GeoServer WAR)
Interesting question; usually people split geoserver into separate machines in
order to load balance. A lot of time has spent getting GeoServer close
physically to the data in order to be efficient; there is no distribution
between the data reading library and the GeoServer code using it to handle web
feature server request. Literally as each feature is read out of the database
the xml is being generated.
If you had to (say for a security setup?) is set up cascading wms in order to
have a front end geoserver talk to a backend geoserver that actually draws the
pictures.
--
Jody Garnett
There are inefficient ways to do it (wfs-cascading for example) and there could
be more efficient ways to do it that still need to be created.
It would be interesting to know why you'd got for such an architecture though,
normally people create clusters in order to get higher performance and
availability, this kind of split instead may increase the points of failure and
certainly reduce efficiency
Cheers
Andrea
Land Registry's House Price Index is now live. www.landregistry.gov.uk
If you have received this e-mail and it was not intended for you, please let us
know, and then delete it. Please treat our communications in confidence, as you
would expect us to treat yours. Land Registry checks all mail and attachments
for known viruses, however, you are advised that you open any attachments at
your own risk.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure
Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in
partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On
leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ultimate all-in-one performance toolkit: Intel(R) Parallel Studio XE:
Pinpoint memory and threading errors before they happen.
Find and fix more than 250 security defects in the development cycle.
Locate bottlenecks in serial and parallel code that limit performance.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devfeb
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
