The whole object must be passed in. Omitting tags within the object is effectively a delete. Yes there's some redundancies here, but it keeps it simple.
----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Raj Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Jo Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Geoserver-devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Geotools-Devel list <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:40:53 PM Subject: Re: [WFSBasic.Users] [Geotools-devel] Versioning WFS-T and protocol extensions > PUT > Simply pass in a chunk of XML, and that object is updated. Wait, can you just pass in part of the node/segment/ect. ? Or do you have to pass the whole thing in? The api notes aren't super clear. Like if I already have <tag k="name" v="Camden Road"/> can I do a put with only: <tag k="name" v="Camdin Road"/> and it will update? Or do I have to do the whole: <segment id="22" from="155337" to="155328" timestamp="2005-04-17 15:12:03" > <tag k="name" v="Camdin Road"/> </segment> to get it to update? If there's a way to just pass in an attribute and have that update then you could combine insert and update more efficiently. Though you'd also need a way to do an update that allows you to remove a tag/attribute. Chris > > DELETE > Just pass in the id > > > > To me, standardization doesn't seem much more complicated than adding the > Atom Publishing Protocol on top of WFS Simple > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Raj Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jo Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Chris Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Geoserver-devel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Geotools-Devel list > <[email protected]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:35:11 AM > Subject: Re: [WFSBasic.Users] [Geotools-devel] Versioning WFS-T and protocol > extensions > > I kind of agree with Chris. To do transactions right moves out of > Simple land. Once you want to update or edit a data set you need to > know all kinds of things about the structure of that data. Not to > mention the other issues. Maybe openstreetmap people could offer some > advice? > --- > Raj > > > On Nov 27, 2006, at 7:15 PM, Jo Walsh wrote: > >> 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, authentication, and versioning >>> you're >>> no longer in 'simple' land (indeed I myself might argue against their >>> place in a simple spec). >> Then 'Simple' is kind of a misnomer. 'Basic' was the original name, >> right? I would have thought being able to write a feature to a web >> feature service was a fairly basic operation ;P >> >> You don't need much of the rest of WFS, right, to do Transactions? >> Like Filter support and POST queries, GML comprehension and emission, >> all these non-Simple things. The question is not "why should it be >> WFS-T" but "why shouldn't it also be this other, kind of WFS-like >> thing" > > > > > > !DSPAM:1003,456c34bf61471995013331! > -- Chris Holmes The Open Planning Project http://topp.openplans.org begin:vcard fn:Chris Holmes n:Holmes;Chris org:The Open Planning Project adr:;;377 Broadway, 11th Floor;New York;NY;10013;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:VP, Strategic Development x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://topp.openplans.org version:2.1 end:vcard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
