Hi all. I know I'm very late to the party here, so please forgive. I like this proposal. It makes the directory more complex (in terms of quantity of files) but also more granular. That's a trade off I'm comfortable with.
The GSIP page doesn't seem to mention (or at least I can't find) the directory called "data" (either in the new schema or the old). Does this directory (which as we all know contains the actual shapefiles) still exist in the same place or has it been moved? I ask because this highlights something uncomfortable for me: The Data Directory isn't really a data directory. What I mean is that it is both a Configuration Directory _and_ a Data Directory. And, also personally, I find it confusing (and so have some others) to have a "data" directory inside of the "Data Directory", especially when there are other things inside the "Data Directory" that aren't data. (Whew.) Perhaps this is just a nomenclature issue. (Jumping the gun here, I guess perhaps I'm asking that if we want to change the structure of the "Data Directory", perhaps it's a good time to change the name of it as well.) Can anyone direct me through this? :) Thanks, Mike Pumphrey OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to call for a vote on GSIP 34: > > http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+34+-+New+data+directory+structure+for+2.x > > Most feedback as been incorporated but the proposal of adding the idea > of maps into the picture has not been incorporated for now. The reasons > why being: > > 1) It increases scope in the short term without a lot of gain. Since the > the upgrade to including maps into the picture is strictly additive to > the data directory structure, it won't be an issue to add it later. > Implementing maps in the short term, even just creating the idea of a > default map is not trivial, and adds a pretty big hurdle. > > 2) Andrea pointed out that the data publishing split with regard to maps > has not totally been fleshed out at this point. And indeed there is some > thoughts about using a thread local view of the catalog as an > alternative. So adding in maps to the structure now could indeed be a > crutch come later. > > So that is the rationale for leaving it out of the picture for now. > Those who stand by the feedback still can vote -1. > > So with that said, let the voting begin. > > -Justin > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
