Jo, Linda and I have been thinking along the same lines. Our WFS-Basic (I HATE Simple:) generates GeoRSS Feeds but will also accepts a GeoRSS feed as input for transaction. There are some major limitations and assumptions to make but I think that this is acceptable for Basic functionality.
Pat. > From: Jo Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:15:16 -0800 > To: Chris Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Geoserver-devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Geotools-Devel list > <[email protected]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [WFSBasic.Users] [Geotools-devel] Versioning WFS-T and protocol > extensions > > 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+implementati >> on+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 > > _______________________________________________ > WFSBasic.Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://mail.opengeospatial.org/mailman/listinfo/wfsbasic.users ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
