> I think that the main benefit would be having a single interface to manage, > both on the side of fcgi configurations (eg Apache) and global, server, > configurations. > I imagine that one could expose some services depending on the overall > configuration, or per user, or per domain, etc. > Geoserver let services share functionalities, being "beans" managed by the > server context available to any service. Anyway this could be a future > feature (I suppose it would take not a small time to be designed and > implemented), but having a single gateway opens to this possibility too.
Ok, that leads probably back to the discussion wether to use apache config & fcgi settings & an existing service proxy (SecureOWS & co.) vs. have a QGIS module for user configuration and management. > Geoserver let services share functionalities, being "beans" managed by the > server context available to any service With QGIS, a service can use any function in core/analysis library. Additionally, Python webservices might directly use qgis bindings and python plugin functionality by importing the relevant classes (correct me if I'm wrong). Is there a use-case where it is necessary to manage the functionality by a central server instance? Regards, Marco Am Freitag, 21. Oktober 2011, 12.07:21 schrieb G. Allegri: > 2011/10/21 Marco Hugentobler <marco.hugentob...@sourcepole.ch> > > > Hi all > > > > It would be great to have a mapscript equivalent for QGIS server, so the > > possibility to modify the request before it arrives at QgsWMSServer > > class. > > > > > GeoServer will provide WMS, WCS and WFS automatically for the data. > > > That could also QGIS server do by default. But with the gateway > > > interface QGIS could provide some custom services, maybe working > > > properly only with some specific data. > > > > What would be the benefit of the gateway interface class compared to > > other services using FastCGI? E.g. if one want to build a WFS/WPS > > service with QGIS, > > the obvious solution would be to create qgis_wps_serv.fcgi or similar. Is > > it > > the idea to have shared service functionality on service level which is > > specific to QGIS services? > > I think that the main benefit would be having a single interface to manage, > both on the side of fcgi configurations (eg Apache) and global, server, > configurations. > I imagine that one could expose some services depending on the overall > configuration, or per user, or per domain, etc. > Geoserver let services share functionalities, being "beans" managed by the > server context available to any service. Anyway this could be a future > feature (I suppose it would take not a small time to be designed and > implemented), but having a single gateway opens to this possibility too. > > giovanni > > > Regards, > > Marco > > > > Am Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2011, 22.54:30 schrieb Martin Dobias: > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:40 PM, G. Allegri <gioha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2011/10/20 Martin Dobias <wonder...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:00 PM, G. Allegri <gioha...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > >> > I imagine a plugin system, similar to Qgis Desktop, where every > > > >> > service is > > > >> > discovered/registered if available in certain library paths. > > > >> > > > >> I am not sure if such implicit (automatic) registration would be > > > >> good. Imagine that you have several web services. You would like to > > > >> run a public WMS server and also another bunch of services for a > > > >> limited group of users. Having all the services available in both > > > >> instances would not be very good - e.g. with a WMS server you may > > > >> automatically provide WPS server. > > > > > > > > Looking at similar architectures, Geoserver seems to work this way, > > > > leaving to a security/configuration layer to enable and control the > > > > availability of the extensions. > > > > Anyway, we can avoid an automatic discovering, and control their > > > > exposure > > > > > > through a configuration system (eg a simple configurations file). > > > > > > GeoServer will provide WMS, WCS and WFS automatically for the data. > > > That could also QGIS server do by default. But with the gateway > > > interface QGIS could provide some custom services, maybe working > > > properly only with some specific data. > > > > > > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Qgis-developer mailing list > > > Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org > > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer > > > > -- > > Dr. Marco Hugentobler > > Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions > > Churerstrasse 22, CH-8808 Pfäffikon SZ, Switzerland > > marco.hugentob...@sourcepole.ch http://www.sourcepole.ch > > Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee -- Dr. Marco Hugentobler Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions Churerstrasse 22, CH-8808 Pfäffikon SZ, Switzerland marco.hugentob...@sourcepole.ch http://www.sourcepole.ch Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee _______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list Qgis-developer@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
