dear Chris, thanks for your prompt and full response, On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 06:37:16PM -0500, Chris Holmes wrote: > I would love it if we could include our ideas on transactions and > versioning and the like in WFS-Simple, but unfortunately I do fear that > when you get in to transactions, authentication, and versioning you're > no longer in 'simple' land (indeed I myself might argue against their > place in a simple spec).
Then 'Simple' is kind of a misnomer. 'Basic' was the original name, right? I would have thought being able to write a feature to a web feature service was a fairly basic operation ;P You don't need much of the rest of WFS, right, to do Transactions? Like Filter support and POST queries, GML comprehension and emission, all these non-Simple things. The question is not "why should it be WFS-T" but "why shouldn't it also be this other, kind of WFS-like thing" > what we're doing to help make it more accessible. I'm definitely open > to a REST API that works against the same backend, if that's what's > needed for 'easy'. Right now we're just extending WFS-T, since there > are clients that implement it already, as opposed to something we just > invent, which may not. So WFS Simple can be seen just as a more RESTful, geowebbish WFS. So perhaps i should be having this argument with their discuss list, and not with you, about Simple implementation of transactions, and use of the interface for versioning that you are describing, because transactions without versions are ... like roses without thorns ... just spammable with worms ... er perhaps i'll try this again in the morning :) There will only be clients if there are services, and either way this is partially going to be something you 'just invent'... > http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOS/Versioning+WFS+-+Phase+one+implementation+proposal > Nod, i was looking earlier, the extensions are clearly documented but what would be really helpful would be sample query strings showing them being used in a request... > We're trying making it as easy as possible. But if you have feedback to > help us on making it even easier, we're all ears, for sure. No, i'm just kibitzing rather than really offering useful suggestions. >Perhaps WFS > Simple first needs to define what a simple transaction is, make a better > interface than the current WFS, and then we can build versioning on top > of that? Though I have maintained that the Transaction portion of the > spec is actually quite nice - maybe 'Simple' could just make it so it > doesn't stress about namespace and gml validation and all... This makes a lot of sense... if enough people can consider it in-remit for Simple... :) cheers, jo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
