Ciao Ben, my 2 cents,
IMHO standards are beatiful as long as they are useful (i.e they make like
simple or even just simpler). If by supporting a standard strictly we
become unnecessarily slow, then we are less useful to users therefore the
standard is failing.
This does not mean that we should ignore rules mandated by the standards.My
usual suggestion in this kind of cases is to put a flag somewhere in the
config to switch between strict/non strict adeherence and go for the non
strict by default.
Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
-------------------------------------------------------
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Founder
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 962313
mob: +39 333 8128928
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/user/GeoSolutionsIT
http://www.linkedin.com/in/simonegiannecchini
http://twitter.com/simogeo
-------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Ben Caradoc-Davies <
ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au> wrote:
> I have encountered a decision point while fixing a bug in WFS 2.0 paging:
> https://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-5085
>
> WFS 2.0 paging is implemented by specifying startindex and count (like
> maxFeatures in 1.1.0) in a GetFeature request. Our implementation uses
> the presence of startindex to detect whether paging is in use; to ensure
> consistency across pages, results must be sorted when paging is in use.
> However, this has one undesirable implication: our use of startindex is
> at odds with the WFS 2.0 spec, which specifies that startindex defaults
> to zero.
>
> I see two options:
>
> Option 1: Performance
> - the presence of startindex triggers sorting for paging consistency
> - the absence of startindex means that responses can be unsorted for
> greater performance
> - startindex=0 and the absence of startindex are treated differently
> - clients that omit startindex for their first page of paged results
> will get inconsistent pages (was are *assuming* that all paging clients
> set startindex=0 for their first page, despite this being explicitly the
> default in the spec)
> - we will have a surprising nudge-nudge-wink-wink interpretation of the
> WFS 2.0 spec that differs from the tabulated default value of startindex
>
> Option 2: Conformance
> - startindex=0 has exactly the same effect as startindex not being
> specified
> - all WFS 2.0 responses will be sorted, at the cost of performance
> - we are conformant with the default values specified in the WFS 2.0 spec
>
> So, in a nutshell, should all WFS 2.0 responses be sorted?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au>
> Software Engineer
> CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
> Australian Resources Research Centre
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
> will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
> threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
