+0
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:21 PM Simone Giannecchini <
simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the clarification.
>
> Regards,
> Simone Giannecchini
> ==
> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
> ==
>
Thank you for the clarification.
Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
==
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
@simogeo
Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
President GeoSolutions USA
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax:
Thanks Simone:
The GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitilizer is Datastore specific, and the
Datastore was added to core some time ago and apparently this helper class
helps the geotools datastore factory operate correctly.
- I am not sure why the initilier was not added at the time (its job is to
+1 here
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54 AM Simone Giannecchini <
simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
> Hi Jody,
> I am +0 now.
> Two things:
> - I don't want to be involved too much with the coding but this part
> surprised me:
> "To migrate to core:
Hi Jody,
I am +0 now.
Two things:
- I don't want to be involved too much with the coding but this part
surprised me:
"To migrate to core: GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitializer.java this should of
been done previously as part of adding datastore support"
Do we really need to have plugin specific code
Simone, please review the revised proposal:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206
For anyone else who voted previously you may wish to double check your
response.
--
Jody Garnett
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:46, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will
Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal accordingly.
--
Jody Garnett
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini <
simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
> "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something
> different from what I propose
"or any variation over this" means that you can propose something different
from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats for WMS and
WFS to end up in core right away.
Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
Visit
I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" -
what do you mean?
I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, and
testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011).
--
Jody Garnett
On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini <
Hi Jody,
no my proposal is:
- GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension
- GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS
or any variation over this.
I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly into
core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andreas Matheus / Secure Dimensions <
a...@secure-dimensions.de> wrote:
> Each request binds resources until the GeoPackage is complete.
> Cancellation is not possible. If the GeoPKG production takes too long, the
> user may “click” again and again and again and
Simone
So the counter proposal is to take WFS and WMS into their own (very small)
extensions, and leave WPS functionality behind as a community module. I am
aware that the wps download extension offers very simple geopackage output
for a single layer.
I will need to check if that is okay.
Jody
.net/browse/GEOT-7011
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> *From: *Jody Garnett
> *Date: *Wednesday, 5. January 2022 at 03:16
> *To: *Simone Giannecchini
> *Cc: *Geoserver Devel
> *Subject: *Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
&g
Hi Jody,
I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed the
usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official
extension.
In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel like
these modules are ready.
Let me know what you think.
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first asked if
this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is interested.
Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do this activity
Hi Jody,
the checklist should be part of the proposal ;-)
Maybe Simone's worries can be addressed by just upgrading the module as an
extension, instead of splitting it and folding it into core modules?
The gs-wms and gs-wfs have somehow limited usage anyways, can only be used
to make small exports
Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first asked
if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is interested.
Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do this activity.
The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at least three
Good Morning Jody,
I am not too inclined on having the gpkg output jump from community to core
for WMS and WFS.
The process we have in place is there to exactly prevent something like
this from happening because "someone needs it urgently".
I mean, have you been using them in production enough to
+1
-Jukka Rahkonen-
Lähettäjä: Andrea Aime
Lähetetty: tiistai 4. tammikuuta 2022 16.14
Vastaanottaja: Torben Barsballe
Kopio: GeoServer
Aihe: Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
And +1 here too
Cheers
Andrea
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:04 AM Torben Barsballe
And +1 here too
Cheers
Andrea
On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:04 AM Torben Barsballe
wrote:
> Looking at the proposal now, +1 from me.
>
> Cheers,
> Torben
>
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 7:42 AM Jody Garnett
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal.
>>
>> I have capacity to support the
Looking at the proposal now, +1 from me.
Cheers,
Torben
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 7:42 AM Jody Garnett wrote:
> Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal.
>
> I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a
> customer is funding this activity).
>
> Jody
>
> On Thu, Dec 30,
Proposal is renamed.
With respect to gs-wps module I would like to see the matching gt-wps
unsupported module which forms its foundation cleaned up (finally).
Something we can discuss in the new year.
--
Jody Garnett
On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 07:40, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Thanks Andrea, I will
Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal.
I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a customer
is funding this activity).
Jody
On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:11 AM Andrea Aime <
andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
> Hi Jody,
> checking the proposal, I believe the title
Hi Jody,
checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to
suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which
does not match the actual proposal.
The actual proposal is:
- Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in gs-wms,
hence,
Please have a look at
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines moving
different sections of the geopackage community module into the appropriate
core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps.
The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility
section which
25 matches
Mail list logo
