>> I am not sure that suggestion (which occurred to me as well) is quite >> strong enough - we are operating with this right now except the branch >> of geoserver is called OWS4. >> > > Sort-of. Except that OWS4 is just a one-man experiment. > geoserver-track-gttrunk (better name, I think) would need to be more > actively developed...perhaps with a cruisecontrol so that folks knew > when it was busted. > > OWS4 should be aligned with the CITE tests - this is part of the whole Geoserver thing - its a lot more than an experiment - it has to be a path to the next version/
BTW - there are now quite a few alternatives that successfully map legacy persistence layers to externally defined schemas, and the EU INSPIRE legislation has just got up that will demand all agencies do just this. By ignoring this reality we basically become a toy, or a custom solution to a few well-funded projects. Geoserver isnt as easy a dumb WMS as mapserver, or even ArcIMS, so if not a WFS reference implementation it has limited value in the "marketplace". The big point is whether we can get geoserver trunk aligned with geotools trunk, and then get some releases out so that new gt modules can be tested and included in geoserver builds without _major_ pain. As Jody says, this is the great hope, and we should focus on enabling and supporting this decoupling above all else. Rob ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
