> PPIO are needed if you want a well rounded wps client, but I don't
> see how you need them in the process api?
>
>
I don't.
> And even in case of the WPS client, there is nothing to reverse engineer
> that I know of, they could be used pretty much as is.
> Can you clarify?
>
>
They ar
> So yeah, while WPS per se is still not ready for GeoServer core
> (over my dead body as long as it lacks of service limits and ability
> to hide processes),
>
>
Agreed.
> the process API looks like something we can commit to once these
> fixes are in.
>
>
That would make me cheerful / moti
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Yep; and I got stuck reverse engineering PPIO for the WPS client codebase.
> So any assistance on mime types would
> be very welcome.
PPIO are needed if you want a well rounded wps client, but I don't
see how you need them in the process api?
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> So this is what you were talking about with respect to the "process stuff
> not being ready".
Err... just part of it. When I said it all we had were some sample processes,
now we have more and I know other people have been implementing extras
> Moving on to something WPS specific, we need to be able to declare
> what mime types the input files/streams
> we are going to accept, and which ones we are going to produce.
> Normally we avoid this issue in GeoServer by trading objects (e.g.,
> RenderedImage, Coverage, FeatureCollection)
> tha
So this is what you were talking about with respect to the "process stuff not
being ready".
Okay lets get cracking; I don't want to commit to a stable until you are
sorted….
> writing processes over and over let me to see some deficiencies in the
> WPS annotations that
> I would like to clear o
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Juan Marín Otero
wrote:
>> One final thing that happened to me while writing processes is
>> realizing that a process
>> will take long, that it cannot be written in a streaming manner for
>> some reason, and thus
>> really wanting the process to be only run in asy
Andrea,
Funny you bring this up, very timely as I've been looking at processes the
past few days.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> Hi,
> writing processes over and over let me to see some deficiencies in the
> WPS annotations that
> I would like to clear out. Some are genera
Hi,
writing processes over and over let me to see some deficiencies in the
WPS annotations that
I would like to clear out. Some are general to processes, some are WPS
usage specific
(that's why I'm cross posting to gs-devevl).
One thing I see I do over and over at the start of a process is value
d
I think he only reviewed the limited dem example that is in the code base which
is probably not complete.
Bastian when you get a chance you actually have to look at the IProcess object
and the Param data structure (which has a wealth of detail about expected
parameters).
Jody
On 24/09/2010, a
On 22/09/2010 17:00, Bastian Schäffer wrote:
> Dear Jody,
>
> we did not look directly at the annotation but at the metadata that is
> provided by a processfactory (which might be based on the annotations).
>
> Problems were that some input datatype were just of type "Object" so it
> is hard from
Dear Jody,
we did not look directly at the annotation but at the metadata that is
provided by a processfactory (which might be based on the annotations).
Problems were that some input datatype were just of type "Object" so it
is hard from that to create a process description automatically.
Hope
Morning Andrea:
I would like to gather up the annotations used for the process module; so I may
have some questions for you over the next couple of days.
I understand the latest ones you were working on are here:
-
http://svn.codehaus.org/geoserver/trunk/src/community/wps/src/main/java/org/geos
13 matches
Mail list logo
