Re: [Geoserver-devel] Crazy idea... what about GeoPackage straight in core for 2.12?

[Brad Hards]

> I like the idea of making geopackage core - because it is a good idea.
+1

> Brad when someone does have a chance to work on 1.2 is implemented it can
> start off life as a community module, and move into core when ready. We
> would need to support both versions right?
We would, but it probably won't be as a community module - its probably a 
variation on the geopackage implementation we already have.
My thinking is that we don't want two implementations - users shouldn't need 
to know what kind of geopackage they have, they just want to throw it against 
the geoserver wall and have it stick in the right place.

Brad



--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] Crazy idea... what about GeoPackage straight in core for 2.12?

[Jody Garnett]

Hey Brad / Andrea:

I like the idea of making geopackage core - because it is a good idea.

Brad when someone does have a chance to work on 1.2 is implemented it can
start off life as a community module, and move into core when ready. We
would need to support both versions right?

--
Jody Garnett

On 27 July 2017 at 06:40, Brad Hards  wrote:

> >   Hi,
> >   I was thinking about the current idea of splitting the geopackage
> > support into several
> >   modules, one store, one WFS output (extension), one WPS output
> > (extension), one WMS output
> >   (community, as written its dangerous for the server stability).
> >
> >   Well, given the importance of the format... what about having the
> > store part as a core component
> >   starting with 2.12? Given it's an OGC standard, it's a bridge
> we'll have
> > to cross anyways.
> >
> >   Opinions?
> I worry about the stability of the format. GeoPackage 1.2 isn't actually
> approved yet, and the changes from 1.1 are substantive (not just a patch):
> https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=74224=1 for
> the
> release notes.
>
> I think that extension would be better for 2.12 for store, and the outputs
> might even be better as remaining in community given the 1.1 -> 1.2
> transition.
>
> Brad
>
>
>
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

[Geoserver-devel] Release of geotools 16.5 & geoserver 2.10.5

[Ian Turton]

I'm planning to push the release for geotools 16.5 and geoserver 2.10.5 on
Monday (or possibly Tuesday as my flight arrives home on Monday morning).
If Kevin can check if GWC needs a related release I will need an assistant
to run that for me.

So if you have any changes you would like to backport for these releases
now would be a good time to do it.

Ian
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel