Jo Walsh ha scritto: > dear Justin, all, > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:45:24AM -0800, Justin Deoliveira wrote: >> Considering that not many people implement wfs altogether, I dont think >> a ton of people will implement wfs-t. I agree that a simple protocol is >> a big win, but not if it starts to reek havoc with existing clients. > > Have you considered WFS transaction and versioning over WFS Simple? > http://www.ogcnetwork.net/wfssimple
At the moment I did not, in fact, but being a different protocol set I don't see why we could not set versioned stuff on top of it. Yet, they do seem to be orthogonal... simple focuses on data retrivial, while versioning focuses most on data update and its management. My take here is that Geoserver could (and should, if simple becomes a spec) provide data with simple protocol, but transactions are not simple... > WFS Simple is designed to have a lot more appeal to casual implementors. > OpenStreetmap.org is one project that's been WFS-T curious for awhile > but found the spec overhead combined with the lack of versioning / > history support, unappealing. But they would benefit hugely from > being able to plug into more generic drawing client support than their > current interface allows ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/REST ) This seems an argument in favour of the more heaviweight WFS-T, since you already have various client that are able to work against it. Versioning and attribution should add what you're missing from the initial spec. > While the apogee for a specification is inclusion in geoserver or > mapserver, it would be great if what came out of the geoserver WFS-TV > efforts *was* appealing to and implementable by a ton of people... I hear you. At the same time, I do feel like if you give away the WFS-T complexities you're left with... nothing? Do consider the WFS-simple in its current state. Even to simply read information, I have to go down and code (yes, code) support for the format they decided to give me feature in. Compare this with WFS: I do have a client, I point it to a server, and voilà, as a user I can manage what was returned without hassle because I know that I can ask things in GML and I can interpret it because it's self describing. No extra programming needed. It gives me the impression that WFS complexities are just moved to another level, that is, instead of having one very complex implementation, you have many simple, potentially one per server and format the provided decided to implement. Cheers Andrea of the client, you ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
