I agree WFS 3.0 is a much better implementation and it would be great if a implementation is started soon to track the current standards development. However, we still have (and will have for a long time) a user need to support WFS 1.0 and 2.0 - so this still needs to be deal with.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 8:32 AM Carlo A. Bertelli (Charta s.r.l.) < carlo.berte...@gmail.com> wrote: > What about starting with/focusing on WFS 3? The new version is really > cleaner and seems much more efficient. > The current WFS implementation in QGIS is much better than previous > versions, even if sometimes making a virtual OGR file il the only way to > use some services. There are really bad server implementations out there, > additionally an automated solution struggles against misleading and lazy > XML informations. This is a broken idea or at least one that asks for close > cooperation between server and client. > Just my remaining cent. > c > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Jeremy Palmer <palmer...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Can I also add that the refactoring that was funded in 2.16 added tests, >> paging support, filter query builder and dynamic caching. There is now a >> lot of complexity in the driver due to the complexity of WFS server >> implementations and the standard, plus the multi-threading code. If a >> refactor is proposed I would be against anything that doesn't deal current >> use cases and edge cases which have already been implemented. Maybe some >> analysis of the failed tests is the first place to start. WFS-T is a side >> issue to that. >> >> Cheers, >> Jeremy >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 7:51 AM Régis Haubourg <regis.haubo...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Even, thanks for pointing that, I missed that history. >>> I'll ask the dev's for the detailed improvements planned, I dont' have >>> any detail currently (sorry for that) >>> Régis >>> >>> Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 21:29, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> >>> a écrit : >>> >>>> Régis, >>>> >>>> Not that I'm against improvements, all the contrary, but just wanted to >>>> underline that the provider was seriously refactored already in 2.16. >>>> Clearly >>>> the lack of WFS-T support for 1.1 and 2.0 in the scope of those >>>> enhancements >>>> can be a source of confusion currently for users. What do you have in >>>> mind as >>>> refactoring exactly ? >>>> >>>> Even >>>> >>>> > Hi all, >>>> > I very much think that the WFS client is an really bad state, and is >>>> not >>>> > really reliable, especially in WFS-T context. >>>> > The good news is that we just have been funded to refactor it ! >>>> > The work should start in september and land in 3.6. I will let our >>>> dev's >>>> > come here with more technical details about the goals. I hope we will >>>> also >>>> > be able to take benefit of this to this the OGC compliancy of the >>>> client >>>> > here. >>>> > Best regards, >>>> > Régis >>>> > >>>> > Le lun. 3 sept. 2018 à 11:36, Tom Chadwin <tom.chad...@nnpa.org.uk> a >>>> > >>>> > écrit : >>>> > > I can't offer any helpful suggestions, but just to let you know I >>>> finally >>>> > > had >>>> > > to disable all my plugin WFS tests. I used to cope, by rerunning >>>> failed >>>> > > Travis runs, but by about three months ago, it seemed no longer >>>> usable - >>>> > > failure after failure. >>>> > > >>>> > > I was using a third-party WFS, and perhaps I could have got round >>>> this by >>>> > > adding a WFS provider to the test docker image, but in this >>>> plugin's case, >>>> > > I >>>> > > didn't think it worth the significant effort to do so. The WM(T)S >>>> tests >>>> > > also >>>> > > use third-party sources and seem stable, so perhaps this wasn't the >>>> > > underlying issue anyway. >>>> > > >>>> > > If an improvement or solution could be found, it would be great to >>>> > > reinstate >>>> > > these tests. >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks >>>> > > >>>> > > Tom >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > ----- >>>> > > Buy Pie Spy: Adventures in British pastry 2010-11 on Amazon >>>> > > -- >>>> > > Sent from: >>>> > > http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/QGIS-Developer-f4099106.html >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > QGIS-Developer mailing list >>>> > > QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org >>>> > > List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>> > > Unsubscribe: >>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Spatialys - Geospatial professional services >>>> http://www.spatialys.com >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> QGIS-Developer mailing list >>> QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org >>> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> QGIS-Developer mailing list >> QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org >> List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer >> > > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Carlo A. Bertelli > Charta servizi e sistemi per il territorio e la storia ambientale srl > Dipendenze del palazzo Doria, > vc. alla Chiesa della Maddalena 9/2 16124 Genova (Italy) > tel./fax +39(0)10 2475439 +39 0108566195 mobile:+39 393 1590711 > e-mail: berte...@chartasrl.eu http://www.chartasrl.eu > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >
_______________________________________________ QGIS-Developer mailing list QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org List info: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer Unsubscribe: https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
