I'm digging up the WFS/WFS-NG datastore fight and want to sort it out
once and for all. I am compiling a comprehensive list of what needs to
happen for WFS-NG to become acceptable:
https://github.com/geotools/geotools/wiki/WFS-to-WFS-NG-upgrade Any
feedback/additions to this list are more than welcome.
Andrea can I ask you some clarification on this,
On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Andrea Aime
<andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it <mailto:andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it>>
wrote:
If you have time, I'd start with backwards compatibility checks,
ability to drop-in replace the old store is mandatory in
a lived projects such as GeoTools and GeoServer.
What do you mean with compatibility checks. I ported all offline and
online unit/integration tests from the WFS to the WFS-NG module.
What exactly needs to happen in addition to that to prove backwards
compatibility? Do we need or have people to test with real configurations?
With respect to the naming colon/underscore issue, I am willing to
take care of this now as well.
I prefer Andrea's proposed solution (see the link above) because it
proposes a single solution for all datastores that may not always be
GML-compatible. But Andrea, how did you envision a user turning this
option on or off in practice? It is up to the datastores themselves? Or
is there a single, centralised configuration in Geoserver for all
datastores? Or ...?
Kind Regards
Niels
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
http://sdm.link/attshape
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
