I am looking into why the raster geopackages GeoServer generates via the
geopackage module are not
being read correctly by gdal and found a few issues, some straight bugs,
other more like odd design decisions.

The straight bug is what's causing GDAL not to read the files correctly,
the current code, shared with mbtiles
generation, forces the request to be cast on a GWC managed gridset (and
actually works only if the requested
layers are cached, which is a bit of a nonsense to me given this is a WMS
request...), and uses that gridset
coordinates for tiles.
Now the problem is that in the geopackage metadata for the layer and the
gridset we are declaring the requested bbox, not the
ones used for tiles generation, resulting in tile coordinates being off the
expected grid.
Now, geopackage natively has the layer bounds that are separate from the
tile matrix ones, but the current geotools code
forces them to be the same.. that's a limitation I'm fixing.

However, the main issue remains... if someone asks for a layer in a certain
SRS, why try to coax it into a tile matrix managed
by GWC?
I believe the intention was to try and leverage GWC cache, but still, while
I understand taking the opportunity if possible, in
my opinion the request of the user should be respected, and if the request
is not a match either by SRS or BBOX to a tileset,
GeoServer should not force a different response.
>From the same line of thought, a WMS request should not fail if it's made
against a layer that is not cached by GWC, like it
does today, with a strange error message too, e.g. asking for UTM 32N,
which is not tile cached:


results in:

java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Thread 19276 Unknown layer nurc:mosaic.
Check the logfiles, it may not have loaded properly

The second thing that I find confusing is, if I asked for a result image
that's 768 pixels wide, why am I getting back a geopackage that's
over 100000 pixels wide? That's... insane, especially for a WMS request
(large jobs should be deferred to WPS asynch requests).
Looking at the code, there is logic that generates the min and max zoom
levels for the tile matrix, and it does something rather surprising...
it picks the zoom level closest to the requested one as the min zoom level,
and then starts adding zoom levels until the matrix
has (stricly) more than 256 tiles in width... in my case, that means 512
tiles, or a total width of 512*256=131072 pixels!

Trying GDAL on the command line, translating from a geotiff to a
geopackage, it makes what looks like a more sensible choice instead: it
uses the
requested zoom level as the _maximum_ one, and then adds overviews to it,
in the cases I've tried, until a single tile is left (basically, a good
output with overviews). With our case we can also generate raster
geopackages out of vector layers, and creating the overviews might end up
hitting badly setup styles displaying too much data, but still, that would
be a problem also in random WMS requests, so I'm not too concerned...

Also, by default, GDAL generates a gridset that's an exact match for the
source data, meaning a custom one. That also makes sense to me, if someone
wants something other than the BBOX/SRS requested there are format options
to choose both the target gridset and min/max zoom levels.

Given that the modules are unsupported and not working properly anyways,
I'd rather fix things to follow GDAL's approach.
Any objection?


GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.

Ing. Andrea Aime
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via di Montramito 3/A
55054  Massarosa (LU)
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39  339 8844549



Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o
nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il
loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio,
per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di
darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio
stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso,
divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od
utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.

The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for
the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or
proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act
(Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection
Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction,
copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is
strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named
addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the
information in this message that has been received in error. The sender
does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or
completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility  for changes
made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Geoserver-devel mailing list

Reply via email to