Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Andrea Aime wrote:
>> Forgot this one... man, your feedback was quite big :-p
> Heh - and this was the only idea I thought was actually good.
>>> GetDiff - GetTransaction Request option
>>> It would be *nice* if the result was *not* a GetFeatures extensions
>>> but inste
Andrea Aime ha scritto:
Rollback - don't do it, use GetDiff
>>> I disagree here for two reasons:
>>> * doing a rollback in the server is very quick, it's just a matter of
>>> a couple of queries (much faster, the more the bigger you revert is)
>> Ah you putting your performance concerns bef
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Andrea Aime wrote:
> Don't follow you about generating code? The Transaction format is quite
> clear though - broken down into delete, update, add ... think this one
> is perfect. If you want to talk further I suggest we make a real example
> and work through both app
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Forgot this one... man, your feedback was quite big :-p
Heh - and this was the only idea I thought was actually good.
>> GetDiff - GetTransaction Request option
>> It would be *nice* if the result was *not* a GetFeatures extensions
>> but instead the exact Transaction request
Andrea Aime wrote:
>> - part of the feature identifier
>> ..> fid="people.wilma.432455">...
> The result of which is a GML document where the revision is either:
> Oh, it occurred to me that having a changing fid for features
> simply breaks the notion of an identifier and makes it hard
> for clien
Forgot this one... man, your feedback was quite big :-p
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Hi Andrea,
> GetDiff - GetTransaction Request option
> It would be *nice* if the result was *not* a GetFeatures extensions but
> instead the exact Transaction request documented required to make the
> change; no
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Hi Andrea,
> The result of which is a GML document where the revision is either:
> - part of the feature identifier
> .. fid="people.wilma.432455">...
Oh, it occurred to me that having a changing fid for features
simply breaks the notion of an identifier and makes it ha
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
> Hi Andrea,
...
> You are clear on your scope (and yes everyone's hopes ask for more, but
> I respect your decision to start small).
>
> Datastore Desgin:
>
> Data table:
> - I was not going to assume the revisionCreated - revisionExpired
> columns; instead used to a s
Hi Andrea,
Going to concentrate my feedback the following (since that is probably what you
need to start coding):
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOS/Versioning+WFS+-+Phase+one+implementation+proposal
>
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, Jesse has also looked over
the following
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 r
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, auth
I have been following the wfs simple discussions and like the focus on
usability by mere mortals. However I have to agree with Chris with that
transactions by nature are non-simple. But Andrea's approach to
versioning follows the KISS philosophy so I remain optimistic that the
two will be compatibl
Jo Walsh wrote:
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 wit
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 clie
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Finally got a chance to look your proposal over, i must say this looks
>> pretty darn cool. I had an idea about how to extend the protocol.
>>
>> Instead of modifying any of the existing wfs schema files, could we
>> define all
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
> Hi Andrea,
>
> Finally got a chance to look your proposal over, i must say this looks
> pretty darn cool. I had an idea about how to extend the protocol.
>
> Instead of modifying any of the existing wfs schema files, could we
> define all of the needed functionalit
Hi Andrea,
Finally got a chance to look your proposal over, i must say this looks
pretty darn cool. I had an idea about how to extend the protocol.
Instead of modifying any of the existing wfs schema files, could we
define all of the needed functionality to support versioning in terms of
new oper
Hi all,
at Geoserver we are working on developing a versioned WFS-T extension
which, at first, should provide single branch versioning with history,
attribution and rollback. Here I have written down the results of my
research (warning, big document):
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOS/Versioni
18 matches
Mail list logo
