and this https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/10016
Luigi Pirelli ************************************************************************************************** * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir * Book: Mastering QGIS3 - 3rd Edition <https://www.packtpub.com/eu/application-development/mastering-geospatial-development-qgis-3x-third-edition> * Hire a team: http://www.qcooperative.net ************************************************************************************************** On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Luigi Pirelli <lui...@gmail.com> wrote: > should have relation with this? > https://github.com/qgis/QGIS-Enhancement-Proposals/issues/144 > > Luigi Pirelli > > > ************************************************************************************************** > * LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luigipirelli > * Stackexchange: http://gis.stackexchange.com/users/19667/luigi-pirelli > * GitHub: https://github.com/luipir > * Book: Mastering QGIS3 - 3rd Edition > <https://www.packtpub.com/eu/application-development/mastering-geospatial-development-qgis-3x-third-edition> > * Hire a team: http://www.qcooperative.net > > ************************************************************************************************** > > > On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 at 20:52, Even Rouault <even.roua...@spatialys.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just a quick note to mention, to avoid any potential duplication of work >> if >> someone else is about to do that, that in the coming weeks I'll work on >> adding >> support for "OGC API - Features" (previously known as WFS3) on the client >> side, now that it is about to be finalized to its 1.0 version. >> >> My initial thought would tend towards to try to add it into the existing >> WFS >> provider. From a UI perspective, I've got some feedback that it would >> probably >> be best to access it through the existing WFS entry to avoid cluttering >> the UI >> with a new provider. >> On the code level, the choice between having a dedicated provider or >> adding >> functionnality in the existing WFS one is not so obvious. >> Technologically, >> there is little in common between traditional WFS ( XML & GML based, KVP >> based >> requests ), and OAPI-F (my own acronym for OGC API - Features) (JSON & >> GeoJSON >> based, with a linking approach). But the WFS provider has something which >> is >> quite useful for the OAPI-F context, which is the local Spatialite-based >> cache >> & the background download capability. Extracting that from the WFS >> provider >> and be generic enough for multiple providers could be quite involved. >> >> Opinions about above directions welcome. >> >> Even >> >> -- >> 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