Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
+0 On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:21 PM Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Thank you for the clarification. > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this > e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please > notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:05 PM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Thanks Simone: >> >> The GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitilizer is Datastore specific, and the >> Datastore was added to core some time ago and apparently this helper class >> helps the geotools datastore factory operate correctly. >> - I am not sure why the initilier was not added at the time (its job is >> to communicate the data directory, rather than the program directory, as >> the base path for a relative filename). >> - The javadoc example shows a shapefile datastore initializer, but that >> is no longer in the codebase anywhere that I can see >> - It could be that the GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitilizer is not needed? If >> so it could be removed ... >> >> The wps download service provides an option to download a very simple >> geopackage, look to be sufficient for my customer's needs. This gives the >> wps community module longer to be worked on. >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> >> On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 at 01:22, Simone Giannecchini < >> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jody, >>> I am +0 now. >>> Two things: >>> - I don't want to be involved too much with the coding but this part >>> surprised me: >>> "To migrate to core: GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitializer.java this should >>> of been done previously as part of adding datastore support" >>> Do we really need to have plugin specific code in core? Is it a leftover? >>> - what happened to the WPS part? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simone Giannecchini >>> == >>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >>> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >>> == >>> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >>> @simogeo >>> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >>> President GeoSolutions USA >>> >>> phone: +39 0584 962313 >>> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >>> mob: +39 333 8128928 >>> >>> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >>> >>> --- >>> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >>> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >>> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >>> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:48 AM Jody Garnett >>> wrote: >>> Simone, please review the revised proposal: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 For anyone else who voted previously you may wish to double check your response. -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:46, Jody Garnett wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal > accordingly. > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something >> different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats >> for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. >> >> Regards, >> Simone Giannecchini >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >> == >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >> @simogeo >> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >> President GeoSolutions USA >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> This
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Thank you for the clarification. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:05 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > Thanks Simone: > > The GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitilizer is Datastore specific, and the > Datastore was added to core some time ago and apparently this helper class > helps the geotools datastore factory operate correctly. > - I am not sure why the initilier was not added at the time (its job is to > communicate the data directory, rather than the program directory, as the > base path for a relative filename). > - The javadoc example shows a shapefile datastore initializer, but that is > no longer in the codebase anywhere that I can see > - It could be that the GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitilizer is not needed? If > so it could be removed ... > > The wps download service provides an option to download a very simple > geopackage, look to be sufficient for my customer's needs. This gives the > wps community module longer to be worked on. > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 at 01:22, Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> I am +0 now. >> Two things: >> - I don't want to be involved too much with the coding but this part >> surprised me: >> "To migrate to core: GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitializer.java this should >> of been done previously as part of adding datastore support" >> Do we really need to have plugin specific code in core? Is it a leftover? >> - what happened to the WPS part? >> >> Regards, >> Simone Giannecchini >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >> == >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >> @simogeo >> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >> President GeoSolutions USA >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:48 AM Jody Garnett >> wrote: >> >>> Simone, please review the revised proposal: >>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 >>> >>> For anyone else who voted previously you may wish to double check your >>> response. >>> -- >>> Jody Garnett >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:46, Jody Garnett >>> wrote: >>> Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal accordingly. -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something > different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats > for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying,
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Thanks Simone: The GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitilizer is Datastore specific, and the Datastore was added to core some time ago and apparently this helper class helps the geotools datastore factory operate correctly. - I am not sure why the initilier was not added at the time (its job is to communicate the data directory, rather than the program directory, as the base path for a relative filename). - The javadoc example shows a shapefile datastore initializer, but that is no longer in the codebase anywhere that I can see - It could be that the GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitilizer is not needed? If so it could be removed ... The wps download service provides an option to download a very simple geopackage, look to be sufficient for my customer's needs. This gives the wps community module longer to be worked on. -- Jody Garnett On Mon, 10 Jan 2022 at 01:22, Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Jody, > I am +0 now. > Two things: > - I don't want to be involved too much with the coding but this part > surprised me: > "To migrate to core: GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitializer.java this should of > been done previously as part of adding datastore support" > Do we really need to have plugin specific code in core? Is it a leftover? > - what happened to the WPS part? > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this > e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please > notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:48 AM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Simone, please review the revised proposal: >> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 >> >> For anyone else who voted previously you may wish to double check your >> response. >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:46, Jody Garnett wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal >>> accordingly. >>> -- >>> Jody Garnett >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini < >>> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >>> "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:50 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" > - what do you mean? > > I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, > and testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011). > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> no my proposal is: >> - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension >> - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS >> or any variation over this. >> >> I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly >> into core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your >> work. >> Feel free to propose something else along
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
+1 here On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54 AM Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Jody, > I am +0 now. > Two things: > - I don't want to be involved too much with the coding but this part > surprised me: > "To migrate to core: GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitializer.java this should of > been done previously as part of adding datastore support" > Do we really need to have plugin specific code in core? Is it a leftover? > - what happened to the WPS part? > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this > e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please > notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:48 AM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Simone, please review the revised proposal: >> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 >> >> For anyone else who voted previously you may wish to double check your >> response. >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:46, Jody Garnett wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal >>> accordingly. >>> -- >>> Jody Garnett >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini < >>> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >>> "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:50 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" > - what do you mean? > > I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, > and testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011). > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> no my proposal is: >> - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension >> - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS >> or any variation over this. >> >> I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly >> into core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your >> work. >> Feel free to propose something else along these lines. >> >> >> Regards, >> Simone Giannecchini >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >> == >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >> @simogeo >> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >> President GeoSolutions USA >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Hi Jody, I am +0 now. Two things: - I don't want to be involved too much with the coding but this part surprised me: "To migrate to core: GeoPkgDataStoreFactoryInitializer.java this should of been done previously as part of adding datastore support" Do we really need to have plugin specific code in core? Is it a leftover? - what happened to the WPS part? Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 6:48 AM Jody Garnett wrote: > Simone, please review the revised proposal: > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 > > For anyone else who voted previously you may wish to double check your > response. > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:46, Jody Garnett wrote: > >> Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal >> accordingly. >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini < >> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something >>> different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats >>> for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simone Giannecchini >>> == >>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >>> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >>> == >>> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >>> @simogeo >>> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >>> President GeoSolutions USA >>> >>> phone: +39 0584 962313 >>> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >>> mob: +39 333 8128928 >>> >>> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >>> >>> --- >>> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >>> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >>> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >>> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:50 PM Jody Garnett >>> wrote: >>> I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" - what do you mean? I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, and testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011). -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Jody, > no my proposal is: > - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension > - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS > or any variation over this. > > I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly > into core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your work. > Feel free to propose something else along these lines. > > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of > this > e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, > please > notify us immediately by telephone or
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Simone, please review the revised proposal: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 For anyone else who voted previously you may wish to double check your response. -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 17:46, Jody Garnett wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal > accordingly. > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something >> different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats >> for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. >> >> Regards, >> Simone Giannecchini >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >> == >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >> @simogeo >> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >> President GeoSolutions USA >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:50 PM Jody Garnett >> wrote: >> >>> I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" - >>> what do you mean? >>> >>> I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, and >>> testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011). >>> -- >>> Jody Garnett >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini < >>> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >>> Hi Jody, no my proposal is: - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS or any variation over this. I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly into core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your work. Feel free to propose something else along these lines. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:29 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > Simone > > So the counter proposal is to take WFS and WMS into their own (very > small) extensions, and leave WPS functionality behind as a community > module. I am aware that the wps download extension offers very simple > geopackage output for a single layer. > > I will need to check if that is okay. > > Jody > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:37 AM Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed >> the usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official >> extension. >> In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel >> like these modules are ready. >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> Regards, >> Simone Giannecchini >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >> == >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >> @simogeo >> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >> President GeoSolutions USA >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >>
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Thanks for the clarification Simone, I will update the proposal accordingly. -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 13:06, Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > "or any variation over this" means that you can propose something > different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats > for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this > e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please > notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. > > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:50 PM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" - >> what do you mean? >> >> I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, and >> testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011). >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> >> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini < >> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jody, >>> no my proposal is: >>> - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension >>> - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS >>> or any variation over this. >>> >>> I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly >>> into core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your work. >>> Feel free to propose something else along these lines. >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simone Giannecchini >>> == >>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >>> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >>> == >>> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >>> @simogeo >>> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >>> President GeoSolutions USA >>> >>> phone: +39 0584 962313 >>> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >>> mob: +39 333 8128928 >>> >>> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >>> >>> --- >>> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >>> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >>> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >>> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:29 PM Jody Garnett >>> wrote: >>> Simone So the counter proposal is to take WFS and WMS into their own (very small) extensions, and leave WPS functionality behind as a community module. I am aware that the wps download extension offers very simple geopackage output for a single layer. I will need to check if that is okay. Jody On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:37 AM Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Jody, > I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed > the usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official > extension. > In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel > like these modules are ready. > > Let me know what you think. > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of > this > e-mail or the information herein by
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
"or any variation over this" means that you can propose something different from what I propose as long as it does not involve GPKG formats for WMS and WFS to end up in core right away. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 9:50 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" - > what do you mean? > > I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, and > testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011). > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> no my proposal is: >> - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension >> - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS >> or any variation over this. >> >> I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly >> into core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your work. >> Feel free to propose something else along these lines. >> >> >> Regards, >> Simone Giannecchini >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >> == >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >> @simogeo >> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >> President GeoSolutions USA >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:29 PM Jody Garnett >> wrote: >> >>> Simone >>> >>> So the counter proposal is to take WFS and WMS into their own (very >>> small) extensions, and leave WPS functionality behind as a community >>> module. I am aware that the wps download extension offers very simple >>> geopackage output for a single layer. >>> >>> I will need to check if that is okay. >>> >>> Jody >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:37 AM Simone Giannecchini < >>> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >>> Hi Jody, I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed the usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official extension. In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel like these modules are ready. Let me know what you think. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:49 AM Andrea Aime < andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Jody, > the checklist should be part of the proposal ;-) > Maybe Simone's
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
I am not sure I understand your statement "or any variation over this" - what do you mean? I am presently trying to make sure I understand your feedback here, and testing fixes for geopackage axis order (GEOS-8793,GEOT-7011). -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 at 11:57, Simone Giannecchini < simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Jody, > no my proposal is: > - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension > - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS > or any variation over this. > > I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly into > core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your work. > Feel free to propose something else along these lines. > > > Regards, > Simone Giannecchini > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. > == > Ing. Simone Giannecchini > @simogeo > Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy > President GeoSolutions USA > > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this > e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please > notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:29 PM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Simone >> >> So the counter proposal is to take WFS and WMS into their own (very >> small) extensions, and leave WPS functionality behind as a community >> module. I am aware that the wps download extension offers very simple >> geopackage output for a single layer. >> >> I will need to check if that is okay. >> >> Jody >> >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:37 AM Simone Giannecchini < >> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jody, >>> I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed the >>> usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official >>> extension. >>> In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel like >>> these modules are ready. >>> >>> Let me know what you think. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simone Giannecchini >>> == >>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >>> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >>> == >>> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >>> @simogeo >>> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >>> President GeoSolutions USA >>> >>> phone: +39 0584 962313 >>> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >>> mob: +39 333 8128928 >>> >>> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >>> >>> --- >>> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >>> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >>> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >>> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >>> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:49 AM Andrea Aime < >>> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >>> Hi Jody, the checklist should be part of the proposal ;-) Maybe Simone's worries can be addressed by just upgrading the module as an extension, instead of splitting it and folding it into core modules? The gs-wms and gs-wfs have somehow limited usage anyways, can only be used to make small exports that would not trigger an HTTP timeout (I have seen 1 to 5 minutes timeouts in pratical deploys). Cheers Andrea On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:16 AM Jody Garnett wrote: > Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first > asked if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is > interested. Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do > this activity. The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at > least three years. Indeed this funding is as a result of a review of the > community modules the customer is using in production, and asking if they > would be interested in helping it be cleaned up and made into an official > extension. > > While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this > functionality has been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat > enterprise products for all our customers (presently it is an option by > request). > > Let's review the
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Hi Jody, no my proposal is: - GPKG output for WMS and WFS becomes an official extension - GPKG output for WPS gets folded in WPS or any variation over this. I am not confident in having GPKG output for WMS and FS jump directly into core but we shall try to find a middle ground to not block your work. Feel free to propose something else along these lines. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:29 PM Jody Garnett wrote: > Simone > > So the counter proposal is to take WFS and WMS into their own (very small) > extensions, and leave WPS functionality behind as a community module. I am > aware that the wps download extension offers very simple geopackage output > for a single layer. > > I will need to check if that is okay. > > Jody > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:37 AM Simone Giannecchini < > simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed the >> usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official >> extension. >> In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel like >> these modules are ready. >> >> Let me know what you think. >> >> Regards, >> Simone Giannecchini >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. >> == >> Ing. Simone Giannecchini >> @simogeo >> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy >> President GeoSolutions USA >> >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:49 AM Andrea Aime < >> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jody, >>> the checklist should be part of the proposal ;-) >>> Maybe Simone's worries can be addressed by just upgrading the module as >>> an extension, instead of splitting it and folding it into core modules? >>> The gs-wms and gs-wfs have somehow limited usage anyways, can only be >>> used to make small exports that would not trigger an HTTP timeout >>> (I have seen 1 to 5 minutes timeouts in pratical deploys). >>> >>> Cheers >>> Andrea >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:16 AM Jody Garnett >>> wrote: >>> Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first asked if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is interested. Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do this activity. The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at least three years. Indeed this funding is as a result of a review of the community modules the customer is using in production, and asking if they would be interested in helping it be cleaned up and made into an official extension. While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this functionality has been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat enterprise products for all our customers (presently it is an option by request). Let's review the checklist: *1. The module has at least a “handful” of users.* I have three users of this functionality, only one I would consider as using it in production. *2. The module has a designated and active maintainer* I offered to join Andrea on this (on the assumption the functionality can be cleaned up and be included in geocat enterprise products). *3. The module is considered “stable” by the majority of the PSC* I checked in with this
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:55 AM Andreas Matheus / Secure Dimensions < a...@secure-dimensions.de> wrote: > Each request binds resources until the GeoPackage is complete. > Cancellation is not possible. If the GeoPKG production takes too long, the > user may “click” again and again and again and thereby cause binding of > resources for completing the same request that perhaps is still in progress > (but defunct). The fact that the client is no longer able to consume the > response (either connection timeout or user cancelled the request) is found > out only after the GeoPackage is fully produced and to be send to the > client (IO Exception as socket is closed). Until then, all necessary > resources of the thread (CPU, Memory, diskspace) are bound to produce a > GeoPackage for nothing… > Agree on the issue, but I would not be so bleak about it. GeoServer WFS has had SHAPE-ZIP output format in core for almost as long as WFS existed, and it shares the same limit, it can only be used for smaller downloads. If that turns into a problem, then I'd argue WFS is mis-configured: there is a maximum feature count setting in WFS, which can be used to limit the size of the generated GeoPackage to a reasonable size (defaults to one million, maybe a bit too much :-D ). Of course you would not be able to download a large dataset in a single request, but that's why WFS provides paging. Download of large packages as single files should definitely be done via WPS async requests (but even there, you cannot force a client to make a async request, the client is in control, not the server). -- Regards, Andrea Aime == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions Group phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail ___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Simone
So the counter proposal is to take WFS and WMS into their own (very small)
extensions, and leave WPS functionality behind as a community module. I am
aware that the wps download extension offers very simple geopackage output
for a single layer.
I will need to check if that is okay.
Jody
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 1:37 AM Simone Giannecchini <
simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
> Hi Jody,
> I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed the
> usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official
> extension.
> In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel like
> these modules are ready.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Regards,
> Simone Giannecchini
> ==
> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
> ==
> Ing. Simone Giannecchini
> @simogeo
> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
> President GeoSolutions USA
>
> phone: +39 0584 962313
> fax: +39 0584 1660272
> mob: +39 333 8128928
>
> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com
> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>
> ---
> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:49 AM Andrea Aime <
> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jody,
>> the checklist should be part of the proposal ;-)
>> Maybe Simone's worries can be addressed by just upgrading the module as
>> an extension, instead of splitting it and folding it into core modules?
>> The gs-wms and gs-wfs have somehow limited usage anyways, can only be
>> used to make small exports that would not trigger an HTTP timeout
>> (I have seen 1 to 5 minutes timeouts in pratical deploys).
>>
>> Cheers
>> Andrea
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:16 AM Jody Garnett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first
>>> asked if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is
>>> interested. Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do
>>> this activity. The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at
>>> least three years. Indeed this funding is as a result of a review of the
>>> community modules the customer is using in production, and asking if they
>>> would be interested in helping it be cleaned up and made into an official
>>> extension.
>>>
>>> While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this functionality
>>> has been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat enterprise products
>>> for all our customers (presently it is an option by request).
>>>
>>> Let's review the checklist:
>>>
>>> *1. The module has at least a “handful” of users.*
>>>
>>> I have three users of this functionality, only one I would consider as
>>> using it in production.
>>>
>>> *2. The module has a designated and active maintainer*
>>>
>>> I offered to join Andrea on this (on the assumption the functionality
>>> can be cleaned up and be included in geocat enterprise products).
>>>
>>> *3. The module is considered “stable” by the majority of the PSC*
>>>
>>> I checked in with this on november/decemeber expecting wfs and wps to be
>>> stable and wms output format to be removed. Andrea asked me to revise the
>>> proposal to include gs-wms.
>>>
>>> So far my personal testing has been mixed, EPSG:4326 output is coming
>>> out in Y/X order which does not match up with the specification:
>>>
>>> The axis order in WKB stored in a GeoPackage follows the de facto
>>> standard for axis order in WKB and is therefore always (x,y{,z}{,m}) where
>>> x is easting or longitude, y is northing or latitude, z is optional
>>> elevation, and m is optional measure. This ordering explicitly overrides
>>> the axis order as specified in the SRS metadata, applying Case 4 from OGC
>>> 08-038r7, Revision to Axis Order Policy and Recommendations[K11]. This was
>>> done to maintain consistency with previous implementations of WKB that
>>> predated the OGC policy.
>>>
>>>
>>> The above indicates additional QA is needed. You can also see the
>>> proposal where I noted frustration with a couple design decisions.
>>>
>>> *4. The module maintains 40% test coverage*
>>>
>>> The coverage looks good, but I have not measured it.
>>>
>>> *5. The module has no IP violations.*
>>>
>>> So far everything seems to be original work, with links to OGC where
>>> appropriate. If something comes up during the activity I will let you know.
>>>
>>> *6. The module has a page in the user manual*
>>>
>>> Not directly useful as the documentation
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
I understand the limitations, downloading WFS output as a shape file is
always popular and subject to the same difficulties you describe.
I think this is more a problem with the WFS workflow than a limitation of
the file format.
Jody
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 12:37 AM Andreas Matheus / Secure Dimensions <
a...@secure-dimensions.de> wrote:
> Jody,
>
>
>
> Even though I am not entitled to vote, I’d like to point out that
> experiences from Testbed 17 clearly show that it is not wise to use GPKG as
> output format to synchronous WMS and WFS requests issued by users.
>
>
>
> Each request binds resources until the GeoPackage is complete.
> Cancellation is not possible. If the GeoPKG production takes too long, the
> user may “click” again and again and again and thereby cause binding of
> resources for completing the same request that perhaps is still in progress
> (but defunct). The fact that the client is no longer able to consume the
> response (either connection timeout or user cancelled the request) is found
> out only after the GeoPackage is fully produced and to be send to the
> client (IO Exception as socket is closed). Until then, all necessary
> resources of the thread (CPU, Memory, diskspace) are bound to produce a
> GeoPackage for nothing…
>
>
>
> In addition we found the GeoPackage axis order issue (as you point out in
> #3) and reported that as bug:
> https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOT-7011
>
>
>
> Best
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> *From: *Jody Garnett
> *Date: *Wednesday, 5. January 2022 at 03:16
> *To: *Simone Giannecchini
> *Cc: *Geoserver Devel
> *Subject: *Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
>
>
>
> Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first
> asked if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is
> interested. Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do
> this activity. The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at
> least three years. Indeed this funding is as a result of a review of the
> community modules the customer is using in production, and asking if they
> would be interested in helping it be cleaned up and made into an official
> extension.
>
>
>
> While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this functionality
> has been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat enterprise products
> for all our customers (presently it is an option by request).
>
>
>
> Let's review the checklist:
>
>
>
> *1. The module has at least a “handful” of users.*
>
>
>
> I have three users of this functionality, only one I would consider as
> using it in production.
>
>
>
> *2. The module has a designated and active maintainer*
>
>
>
> I offered to join Andrea on this (on the assumption the functionality can
> be cleaned up and be included in geocat enterprise products).
>
>
>
> *3. The module is considered “stable” by the majority of the PSC*
>
>
>
> I checked in with this on november/decemeber expecting wfs and wps to be
> stable and wms output format to be removed. Andrea asked me to revise the
> proposal to include gs-wms.
>
>
>
> So far my personal testing has been mixed, EPSG:4326 output is coming out
> in Y/X order which does not match up with the specification:
>
>
>
> The axis order in WKB stored in a GeoPackage follows the de facto standard
> for axis order in WKB and is therefore always (x,y{,z}{,m}) where x is
> easting or longitude, y is northing or latitude, z is optional elevation,
> and m is optional measure. This ordering explicitly overrides the axis
> order as specified in the SRS metadata, applying Case 4 from OGC 08-038r7,
> Revision to Axis Order Policy and Recommendations[K11]. This was done to
> maintain consistency with previous implementations of WKB that predated the
> OGC policy.
>
>
>
> The above indicates additional QA is needed. You can also see the proposal
> where I noted frustration with a couple design decisions.
>
>
>
> *4. The module maintains 40% test coverage*
>
>
>
> The coverage looks good, but I have not measured it.
>
>
>
> *5. The module has no IP violations.*
>
>
>
> So far everything seems to be original work, with links to OGC where
> appropriate. If something comes up during the activity I will let you know.
>
>
>
> *6. The module has a page in the user manual*
>
>
>
> Not directly useful as the documentation will be distributed across
> several pages:
>
> * https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/user/community/geopkg/index.html
>
>
>
> I also note geosolutions has training materials
> https://docs.geoserver.geo-solutions
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Hi Jody,
I second what Andrea said, I'd be much more confident if we followed the
usual path and we made the gpkg output for WMS and WFS as an official
extension.
In time we can move it to core but at the moment I still don't feel like
these modules are ready.
Let me know what you think.
Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
==
Ing. Simone Giannecchini
@simogeo
Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
President GeoSolutions USA
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 333 8128928
http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
---
This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:49 AM Andrea Aime <
andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
> Hi Jody,
> the checklist should be part of the proposal ;-)
> Maybe Simone's worries can be addressed by just upgrading the module as an
> extension, instead of splitting it and folding it into core modules?
> The gs-wms and gs-wfs have somehow limited usage anyways, can only be used
> to make small exports that would not trigger an HTTP timeout
> (I have seen 1 to 5 minutes timeouts in pratical deploys).
>
> Cheers
> Andrea
>
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:16 AM Jody Garnett
> wrote:
>
>> Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first
>> asked if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is
>> interested. Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do
>> this activity. The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at
>> least three years. Indeed this funding is as a result of a review of the
>> community modules the customer is using in production, and asking if they
>> would be interested in helping it be cleaned up and made into an official
>> extension.
>>
>> While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this functionality
>> has been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat enterprise products
>> for all our customers (presently it is an option by request).
>>
>> Let's review the checklist:
>>
>> *1. The module has at least a “handful” of users.*
>>
>> I have three users of this functionality, only one I would consider as
>> using it in production.
>>
>> *2. The module has a designated and active maintainer*
>>
>> I offered to join Andrea on this (on the assumption the functionality can
>> be cleaned up and be included in geocat enterprise products).
>>
>> *3. The module is considered “stable” by the majority of the PSC*
>>
>> I checked in with this on november/decemeber expecting wfs and wps to be
>> stable and wms output format to be removed. Andrea asked me to revise the
>> proposal to include gs-wms.
>>
>> So far my personal testing has been mixed, EPSG:4326 output is coming out
>> in Y/X order which does not match up with the specification:
>>
>> The axis order in WKB stored in a GeoPackage follows the de facto
>> standard for axis order in WKB and is therefore always (x,y{,z}{,m}) where
>> x is easting or longitude, y is northing or latitude, z is optional
>> elevation, and m is optional measure. This ordering explicitly overrides
>> the axis order as specified in the SRS metadata, applying Case 4 from OGC
>> 08-038r7, Revision to Axis Order Policy and Recommendations[K11]. This was
>> done to maintain consistency with previous implementations of WKB that
>> predated the OGC policy.
>>
>>
>> The above indicates additional QA is needed. You can also see the
>> proposal where I noted frustration with a couple design decisions.
>>
>> *4. The module maintains 40% test coverage*
>>
>> The coverage looks good, but I have not measured it.
>>
>> *5. The module has no IP violations.*
>>
>> So far everything seems to be original work, with links to OGC where
>> appropriate. If something comes up during the activity I will let you know.
>>
>> *6. The module has a page in the user manual*
>>
>> Not directly useful as the documentation will be distributed across
>> several pages:
>> * https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/user/community/geopkg/index.html
>>
>> I also note geosolutions has training materials
>> https://docs.geoserver.geo-solutions.it/edu/en/wps/geopackage_output.html
>>
>> *7. The maintainer has signed the GeoServer Contributor Agreement*
>>
>> OSGeo has a signed CLA from both myself and GeoCat BV.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 14:23, Simone Giannecchini <
>> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Good Morning
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Jody,
Even though I am not entitled to vote, I’d like to point out that experiences
from Testbed 17 clearly show that it is not wise to use GPKG as output format
to synchronous WMS and WFS requests issued by users.
Each request binds resources until the GeoPackage is complete. Cancellation is
not possible. If the GeoPKG production takes too long, the user may “click”
again and again and again and thereby cause binding of resources for completing
the same request that perhaps is still in progress (but defunct). The fact that
the client is no longer able to consume the response (either connection timeout
or user cancelled the request) is found out only after the GeoPackage is fully
produced and to be send to the client (IO Exception as socket is closed). Until
then, all necessary resources of the thread (CPU, Memory, diskspace) are bound
to produce a GeoPackage for nothing…
In addition we found the GeoPackage axis order issue (as you point out in #3)
and reported that as bug: https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/browse/GEOT-7011
Best
Andreas
From: Jody Garnett
Date: Wednesday, 5. January 2022 at 03:16
To: Simone Giannecchini
Cc: Geoserver Devel
Subject: Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first asked if
this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is interested.
Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do this activity. The
customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at least three years. Indeed
this funding is as a result of a review of the community modules the customer
is using in production, and asking if they would be interested in helping it be
cleaned up and made into an official extension.
While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this functionality has
been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat enterprise products for all
our customers (presently it is an option by request).
Let's review the checklist:
1. The module has at least a “handful” of users.
I have three users of this functionality, only one I would consider as using it
in production.
2. The module has a designated and active maintainer
I offered to join Andrea on this (on the assumption the functionality can be
cleaned up and be included in geocat enterprise products).
3. The module is considered “stable” by the majority of the PSC
I checked in with this on november/decemeber expecting wfs and wps to be stable
and wms output format to be removed. Andrea asked me to revise the proposal to
include gs-wms.
So far my personal testing has been mixed, EPSG:4326 output is coming out in
Y/X order which does not match up with the specification:
The axis order in WKB stored in a GeoPackage follows the de facto standard for
axis order in WKB and is therefore always (x,y{,z}{,m}) where x is easting or
longitude, y is northing or latitude, z is optional elevation, and m is
optional measure. This ordering explicitly overrides the axis order as
specified in the SRS metadata, applying Case 4 from OGC 08-038r7, Revision to
Axis Order Policy and Recommendations[K11]. This was done to maintain
consistency with previous implementations of WKB that predated the OGC policy.
The above indicates additional QA is needed. You can also see the proposal
where I noted frustration with a couple design decisions.
4. The module maintains 40% test coverage
The coverage looks good, but I have not measured it.
5. The module has no IP violations.
So far everything seems to be original work, with links to OGC where
appropriate. If something comes up during the activity I will let you know.
6. The module has a page in the user manual
Not directly useful as the documentation will be distributed across several
pages:
* https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/user/community/geopkg/index.html
I also note geosolutions has training materials
https://docs.geoserver.geo-solutions.it/edu/en/wps/geopackage_output.html
7. The maintainer has signed the GeoServer Contributor Agreement
OSGeo has a signed CLA from both myself and GeoCat BV.
--
Jody Garnett
On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 14:23, Simone Giannecchini
wrote:
Good Morning Jody,
I am not too inclined on having the gpkg output jump from community to core for
WMS and WFS.
The process we have in place is there to exactly prevent something like this
from happening because "someone needs it urgently".
I mean, have you been using them in production enough to be confident with
them? Do you already have a sizable number of clients using the extensions so
we can trust them? I guess not given what you said above...
For the moment my vote is a -1 on this, but I am happy to hear your thoughts on
my points above.
Regards,
Simone Giannecchini
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more i
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Hi Jody,
the checklist should be part of the proposal ;-)
Maybe Simone's worries can be addressed by just upgrading the module as an
extension, instead of splitting it and folding it into core modules?
The gs-wms and gs-wfs have somehow limited usage anyways, can only be used
to make small exports that would not trigger an HTTP timeout
(I have seen 1 to 5 minutes timeouts in pratical deploys).
Cheers
Andrea
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 3:16 AM Jody Garnett wrote:
> Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first
> asked if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is
> interested. Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do
> this activity. The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at
> least three years. Indeed this funding is as a result of a review of the
> community modules the customer is using in production, and asking if they
> would be interested in helping it be cleaned up and made into an official
> extension.
>
> While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this functionality
> has been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat enterprise products
> for all our customers (presently it is an option by request).
>
> Let's review the checklist:
>
> *1. The module has at least a “handful” of users.*
>
> I have three users of this functionality, only one I would consider as
> using it in production.
>
> *2. The module has a designated and active maintainer*
>
> I offered to join Andrea on this (on the assumption the functionality can
> be cleaned up and be included in geocat enterprise products).
>
> *3. The module is considered “stable” by the majority of the PSC*
>
> I checked in with this on november/decemeber expecting wfs and wps to be
> stable and wms output format to be removed. Andrea asked me to revise the
> proposal to include gs-wms.
>
> So far my personal testing has been mixed, EPSG:4326 output is coming out
> in Y/X order which does not match up with the specification:
>
> The axis order in WKB stored in a GeoPackage follows the de facto standard
> for axis order in WKB and is therefore always (x,y{,z}{,m}) where x is
> easting or longitude, y is northing or latitude, z is optional elevation,
> and m is optional measure. This ordering explicitly overrides the axis
> order as specified in the SRS metadata, applying Case 4 from OGC 08-038r7,
> Revision to Axis Order Policy and Recommendations[K11]. This was done to
> maintain consistency with previous implementations of WKB that predated the
> OGC policy.
>
>
> The above indicates additional QA is needed. You can also see the proposal
> where I noted frustration with a couple design decisions.
>
> *4. The module maintains 40% test coverage*
>
> The coverage looks good, but I have not measured it.
>
> *5. The module has no IP violations.*
>
> So far everything seems to be original work, with links to OGC where
> appropriate. If something comes up during the activity I will let you know.
>
> *6. The module has a page in the user manual*
>
> Not directly useful as the documentation will be distributed across
> several pages:
> * https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/user/community/geopkg/index.html
>
> I also note geosolutions has training materials
> https://docs.geoserver.geo-solutions.it/edu/en/wps/geopackage_output.html
>
> *7. The maintainer has signed the GeoServer Contributor Agreement*
>
> OSGeo has a signed CLA from both myself and GeoCat BV.
>
>
> --
> Jody Garnett
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 14:23, Simone Giannecchini <
> simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Good Morning Jody,
>> I am not too inclined on having the gpkg output jump from community to
>> core for WMS and WFS.
>> The process we have in place is there to exactly prevent something like
>> this from happening because "someone needs it urgently".
>> I mean, have you been using them in production enough to be confident
>> with them? Do you already have a sizable number of clients using the
>> extensions so we can trust them? I guess not given what you said above...
>>
>> For the moment my vote is a -1 on this, but I am happy to hear your
>> thoughts on my points above.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simone Giannecchini
>> ==
>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
>> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
>> ==
>> Ing. Simone Giannecchini
>> @simogeo
>> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
>> President GeoSolutions USA
>>
>> phone: +39 0584 962313
>> fax: +39 0584 1660272
>> mob: +39 333 8128928
>>
>> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com
>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>>
>> ---
>> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
>> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
>> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
>> e-mail or the information herein
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Simone, this is the definition of slow moving and not urgent. I first asked
if this was a good idea around 2 years ago as a customer is interested.
Procurement moves slowly, funding has now come through to do this activity.
The customer has been using geopackage WFS output for at least three years.
Indeed this funding is as a result of a review of the community modules the
customer is using in production, and asking if they would be interested in
helping it be cleaned up and made into an official extension.
While I do not have a sizable number of clients, once this functionality
has been cleaned up I will be adding it to the geocat enterprise products
for all our customers (presently it is an option by request).
Let's review the checklist:
*1. The module has at least a “handful” of users.*
I have three users of this functionality, only one I would consider as
using it in production.
*2. The module has a designated and active maintainer*
I offered to join Andrea on this (on the assumption the functionality can
be cleaned up and be included in geocat enterprise products).
*3. The module is considered “stable” by the majority of the PSC*
I checked in with this on november/decemeber expecting wfs and wps to be
stable and wms output format to be removed. Andrea asked me to revise the
proposal to include gs-wms.
So far my personal testing has been mixed, EPSG:4326 output is coming out
in Y/X order which does not match up with the specification:
The axis order in WKB stored in a GeoPackage follows the de facto standard
for axis order in WKB and is therefore always (x,y{,z}{,m}) where x is
easting or longitude, y is northing or latitude, z is optional elevation,
and m is optional measure. This ordering explicitly overrides the axis
order as specified in the SRS metadata, applying Case 4 from OGC 08-038r7,
Revision to Axis Order Policy and Recommendations[K11]. This was done to
maintain consistency with previous implementations of WKB that predated the
OGC policy.
The above indicates additional QA is needed. You can also see the proposal
where I noted frustration with a couple design decisions.
*4. The module maintains 40% test coverage*
The coverage looks good, but I have not measured it.
*5. The module has no IP violations.*
So far everything seems to be original work, with links to OGC where
appropriate. If something comes up during the activity I will let you know.
*6. The module has a page in the user manual*
Not directly useful as the documentation will be distributed across several
pages:
* https://docs.geoserver.org/stable/en/user/community/geopkg/index.html
I also note geosolutions has training materials
https://docs.geoserver.geo-solutions.it/edu/en/wps/geopackage_output.html
*7. The maintainer has signed the GeoServer Contributor Agreement*
OSGeo has a signed CLA from both myself and GeoCat BV.
--
Jody Garnett
On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 14:23, Simone Giannecchini <
simone.giannecch...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote:
> Good Morning Jody,
> I am not too inclined on having the gpkg output jump from community to
> core for WMS and WFS.
> The process we have in place is there to exactly prevent something like
> this from happening because "someone needs it urgently".
> I mean, have you been using them in production enough to be confident with
> them? Do you already have a sizable number of clients using the extensions
> so we can trust them? I guess not given what you said above...
>
> For the moment my vote is a -1 on this, but I am happy to hear your
> thoughts on my points above.
>
> Regards,
> Simone Giannecchini
> ==
> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts!
> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information.
> ==
> Ing. Simone Giannecchini
> @simogeo
> Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy
> President GeoSolutions USA
>
> phone: +39 0584 962313
> fax: +39 0584 1660272
> mob: +39 333 8128928
>
> http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com
> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
>
> ---
> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is
> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by
> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this
> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please
> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 1:50 AM Jody Garnett
> wrote:
>
>> Proposal is renamed.
>>
>> With respect to gs-wps module I would like to see the matching gt-wps
>> unsupported module which forms its foundation cleaned up (finally).
>> Something we can discuss in the new year.
>> --
>> Jody Garnett
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 07:40, Jody Garnett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal.
>>>
>>> I have capacity to support the wps module on
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Good Morning Jody, I am not too inclined on having the gpkg output jump from community to core for WMS and WFS. The process we have in place is there to exactly prevent something like this from happening because "someone needs it urgently". I mean, have you been using them in production enough to be confident with them? Do you already have a sizable number of clients using the extensions so we can trust them? I guess not given what you said above... For the moment my vote is a -1 on this, but I am happy to hear your thoughts on my points above. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo Founder/Director GeoSolutions Italy President GeoSolutions USA phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geosolutionsgroup.com http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail. On Fri, Dec 31, 2021 at 1:50 AM Jody Garnett wrote: > Proposal is renamed. > > With respect to gs-wps module I would like to see the matching gt-wps > unsupported module which forms its foundation cleaned up (finally). > Something we can discuss in the new year. > -- > Jody Garnett > > > On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 07:40, Jody Garnett wrote: > >> Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal. >> >> I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a >> customer is funding this activity). >> >> Jody >> >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:11 AM Andrea Aime < >> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jody, >>> checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to >>> suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which >>> does not match the actual proposal. >>> The actual proposal is: >>> >>>- Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in >>>gs-wms, hence, move these two bits in _core_ >>>- Fold the WPS process in gs-wps-core >>> >>> About the move to cover of the WMS/WFS output formats, from a technical >>> point of view I'm not concerned: >>> >>>- The WFS output format will eventually break for large outputs due >>>to HTTP time outs (needs to be written on disk first, streamed back once >>>complete), but the same already happens for zipped shapefiles, so nothing >>>really new >>>- The WMS output format now honors the rendering time outs, so it >>>should be fine >>> >>> I should however point out that the core of GeoServer is "maintained by >>> the PSC" so the rest of the PSC should be comfortable having that code in >>> core, and realize the associated obligation. >>> >>> About the move of the WPS process to wps-core, I'm also personally not >>> deeply concerned, if the documentation >>> is very clear about the experimental extensions baked into the process >>> (so doc updates are needed). >>> I'm however noting the code moving also moves its maintainership from >>> "nobody" to me (the WPS module maintainer), which I'm not too fond of [1]. >>> >>> Since you're making the proposal, I'd like you to step up as >>> co-maintainer of the code you're trying to push up. For the core bits, as a >>> PSC member, you're taking that >>> responsibility automatically anyways. Please step up to co-maintain the >>> processes once moved in gs-wps-core. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Andrea >>> >>> [1] Due to both project and business obligations I'm responsible for way >>> too many modules already, >>> something which is too big of a onus on my shoulders, and a big project >>> liability in case I get sick >>> or decide to leave. It's something we'll have to address, possibly >>> sooner rather than later. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jody Garnett >>> wrote: >>> Please have a look at https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines moving different sections of the geopackage community module into the appropriate core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps. The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility section which proposes calling out wps geopackage supports for not yet finalized extensions. While there is nothing wrong with having geoserver specific extensions they should be documented as such (and marked as in progress if they are chasing a moving target). If folks feel strongly about documentation not being enough warning I can look at leaving these geopackage extensions as an
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
+1 -Jukka Rahkonen- Lähettäjä: Andrea Aime Lähetetty: tiistai 4. tammikuuta 2022 16.14 Vastaanottaja: Torben Barsballe Kopio: GeoServer Aihe: Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension And +1 here too Cheers Andrea On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:04 AM Torben Barsballe mailto:torbenbarsba...@gmail.com>> wrote: Looking at the proposal now, +1 from me. Cheers, Torben On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 7:42 AM Jody Garnett mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal. I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a customer is funding this activity). Jody On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:11 AM Andrea Aime mailto:andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com>> wrote: Hi Jody, checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which does not match the actual proposal. The actual proposal is: * Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in gs-wms, hence, move these two bits in _core_ * Fold the WPS process in gs-wps-core About the move to cover of the WMS/WFS output formats, from a technical point of view I'm not concerned: * The WFS output format will eventually break for large outputs due to HTTP time outs (needs to be written on disk first, streamed back once complete), but the same already happens for zipped shapefiles, so nothing really new * The WMS output format now honors the rendering time outs, so it should be fine I should however point out that the core of GeoServer is "maintained by the PSC" so the rest of the PSC should be comfortable having that code in core, and realize the associated obligation. About the move of the WPS process to wps-core, I'm also personally not deeply concerned, if the documentation is very clear about the experimental extensions baked into the process (so doc updates are needed). I'm however noting the code moving also moves its maintainership from "nobody" to me (the WPS module maintainer), which I'm not too fond of [1]. Since you're making the proposal, I'd like you to step up as co-maintainer of the code you're trying to push up. For the core bits, as a PSC member, you're taking that responsibility automatically anyways. Please step up to co-maintain the processes once moved in gs-wps-core. Cheers Andrea [1] Due to both project and business obligations I'm responsible for way too many modules already, something which is too big of a onus on my shoulders, and a big project liability in case I get sick or decide to leave. It's something we'll have to address, possibly sooner rather than later. On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jody Garnett mailto:jody.garn...@gmail.com>> wrote: Please have a look at https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines moving different sections of the geopackage community module into the appropriate core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps. The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility section which proposes calling out wps geopackage supports for not yet finalized extensions. While there is nothing wrong with having geoserver specific extensions they should be documented as such (and marked as in progress if they are chasing a moving target). If folks feel strongly about documentation not being enough warning I can look at leaving these geopackage extensions as an optional install. Jody -- -- Jody Garnett ___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net<mailto:Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel -- Regards, Andrea Aime == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions Group phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
And +1 here too Cheers Andrea On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 12:04 AM Torben Barsballe wrote: > Looking at the proposal now, +1 from me. > > Cheers, > Torben > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 7:42 AM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal. >> >> I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a >> customer is funding this activity). >> >> Jody >> >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:11 AM Andrea Aime < >> andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jody, >>> checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to >>> suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which >>> does not match the actual proposal. >>> The actual proposal is: >>> >>>- Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in >>>gs-wms, hence, move these two bits in _core_ >>>- Fold the WPS process in gs-wps-core >>> >>> About the move to cover of the WMS/WFS output formats, from a technical >>> point of view I'm not concerned: >>> >>>- The WFS output format will eventually break for large outputs due >>>to HTTP time outs (needs to be written on disk first, streamed back once >>>complete), but the same already happens for zipped shapefiles, so nothing >>>really new >>>- The WMS output format now honors the rendering time outs, so it >>>should be fine >>> >>> I should however point out that the core of GeoServer is "maintained by >>> the PSC" so the rest of the PSC should be comfortable having that code in >>> core, and realize the associated obligation. >>> >>> About the move of the WPS process to wps-core, I'm also personally not >>> deeply concerned, if the documentation >>> is very clear about the experimental extensions baked into the process >>> (so doc updates are needed). >>> I'm however noting the code moving also moves its maintainership from >>> "nobody" to me (the WPS module maintainer), which I'm not too fond of [1]. >>> >>> Since you're making the proposal, I'd like you to step up as >>> co-maintainer of the code you're trying to push up. For the core bits, as a >>> PSC member, you're taking that >>> responsibility automatically anyways. Please step up to co-maintain the >>> processes once moved in gs-wps-core. >>> >>> Cheers >>> Andrea >>> >>> [1] Due to both project and business obligations I'm responsible for way >>> too many modules already, >>> something which is too big of a onus on my shoulders, and a big project >>> liability in case I get sick >>> or decide to leave. It's something we'll have to address, possibly >>> sooner rather than later. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jody Garnett >>> wrote: >>> Please have a look at https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines moving different sections of the geopackage community module into the appropriate core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps. The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility section which proposes calling out wps geopackage supports for not yet finalized extensions. While there is nothing wrong with having geoserver specific extensions they should be documented as such (and marked as in progress if they are chasing a moving target). If folks feel strongly about documentation not being enough warning I can look at leaving these geopackage extensions as an optional install. Jody -- -- Jody Garnett >>> ___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Andrea Aime >>> >>> == >>> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >>> >>> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. >>> == >>> >>> Ing. Andrea Aime >>> @geowolf >>> Technical Lead >>> >>> GeoSolutions Group >>> phone: +39 0584 962313 >>> >>> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >>> >>> mob: +39 333 8128928 >>> >>> https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ >>> >>> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >>> >>> --- >>> >>> Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. >>> UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si >>> precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo >>> contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è >>> riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il >>> messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra >>> operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. >>> >>> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >>> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >>> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >>> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying,
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Looking at the proposal now, +1 from me. Cheers, Torben On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 7:42 AM Jody Garnett wrote: > Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal. > > I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a > customer is funding this activity). > > Jody > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:11 AM Andrea Aime < > andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to >> suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which >> does not match the actual proposal. >> The actual proposal is: >> >>- Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in gs-wms, >>hence, move these two bits in _core_ >>- Fold the WPS process in gs-wps-core >> >> About the move to cover of the WMS/WFS output formats, from a technical >> point of view I'm not concerned: >> >>- The WFS output format will eventually break for large outputs due >>to HTTP time outs (needs to be written on disk first, streamed back once >>complete), but the same already happens for zipped shapefiles, so nothing >>really new >>- The WMS output format now honors the rendering time outs, so it >>should be fine >> >> I should however point out that the core of GeoServer is "maintained by >> the PSC" so the rest of the PSC should be comfortable having that code in >> core, and realize the associated obligation. >> >> About the move of the WPS process to wps-core, I'm also personally not >> deeply concerned, if the documentation >> is very clear about the experimental extensions baked into the process >> (so doc updates are needed). >> I'm however noting the code moving also moves its maintainership from >> "nobody" to me (the WPS module maintainer), which I'm not too fond of [1]. >> >> Since you're making the proposal, I'd like you to step up as >> co-maintainer of the code you're trying to push up. For the core bits, as a >> PSC member, you're taking that >> responsibility automatically anyways. Please step up to co-maintain the >> processes once moved in gs-wps-core. >> >> Cheers >> Andrea >> >> [1] Due to both project and business obligations I'm responsible for way >> too many modules already, >> something which is too big of a onus on my shoulders, and a big project >> liability in case I get sick >> or decide to leave. It's something we'll have to address, possibly sooner >> rather than later. >> >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jody Garnett >> wrote: >> >>> Please have a look at >>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines >>> moving different sections of the geopackage community module into the >>> appropriate core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps. >>> >>> The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility >>> section which proposes calling out wps geopackage supports for not yet >>> finalized extensions. While there is nothing wrong with having geoserver >>> specific extensions they should be documented as such (and marked as in >>> progress if they are chasing a moving target). If folks feel strongly >>> about documentation not being enough warning I can look at leaving these >>> geopackage extensions as an optional install. >>> >>> Jody >>> -- >>> -- >>> Jody Garnett >>> >> ___ >>> Geoserver-devel mailing list >>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Andrea Aime >> >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. >> == >> >> Ing. Andrea Aime >> @geowolf >> Technical Lead >> >> GeoSolutions Group >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ >> >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> >> Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. >> UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si >> precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo >> contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è >> riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il >> messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra >> operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. >> >> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >> e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended >> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please >> notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail >> > -- >
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Proposal is renamed. With respect to gs-wps module I would like to see the matching gt-wps unsupported module which forms its foundation cleaned up (finally). Something we can discuss in the new year. -- Jody Garnett On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 07:40, Jody Garnett wrote: > Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal. > > I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a > customer is funding this activity). > > Jody > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:11 AM Andrea Aime < > andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jody, >> checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to >> suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which >> does not match the actual proposal. >> The actual proposal is: >> >>- Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in gs-wms, >>hence, move these two bits in _core_ >>- Fold the WPS process in gs-wps-core >> >> About the move to cover of the WMS/WFS output formats, from a technical >> point of view I'm not concerned: >> >>- The WFS output format will eventually break for large outputs due >>to HTTP time outs (needs to be written on disk first, streamed back once >>complete), but the same already happens for zipped shapefiles, so nothing >>really new >>- The WMS output format now honors the rendering time outs, so it >>should be fine >> >> I should however point out that the core of GeoServer is "maintained by >> the PSC" so the rest of the PSC should be comfortable having that code in >> core, and realize the associated obligation. >> >> About the move of the WPS process to wps-core, I'm also personally not >> deeply concerned, if the documentation >> is very clear about the experimental extensions baked into the process >> (so doc updates are needed). >> I'm however noting the code moving also moves its maintainership from >> "nobody" to me (the WPS module maintainer), which I'm not too fond of [1]. >> >> Since you're making the proposal, I'd like you to step up as >> co-maintainer of the code you're trying to push up. For the core bits, as a >> PSC member, you're taking that >> responsibility automatically anyways. Please step up to co-maintain the >> processes once moved in gs-wps-core. >> >> Cheers >> Andrea >> >> [1] Due to both project and business obligations I'm responsible for way >> too many modules already, >> something which is too big of a onus on my shoulders, and a big project >> liability in case I get sick >> or decide to leave. It's something we'll have to address, possibly sooner >> rather than later. >> >> On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jody Garnett >> wrote: >> >>> Please have a look at >>> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines >>> moving different sections of the geopackage community module into the >>> appropriate core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps. >>> >>> The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility >>> section which proposes calling out wps geopackage supports for not yet >>> finalized extensions. While there is nothing wrong with having geoserver >>> specific extensions they should be documented as such (and marked as in >>> progress if they are chasing a moving target). If folks feel strongly >>> about documentation not being enough warning I can look at leaving these >>> geopackage extensions as an optional install. >>> >>> Jody >>> -- >>> -- >>> Jody Garnett >>> >> ___ >>> Geoserver-devel mailing list >>> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Andrea Aime >> >> == >> GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! >> >> Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. >> == >> >> Ing. Andrea Aime >> @geowolf >> Technical Lead >> >> GeoSolutions Group >> phone: +39 0584 962313 >> >> fax: +39 0584 1660272 >> >> mob: +39 333 8128928 >> >> https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ >> >> http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it >> >> --- >> >> Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. >> UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si >> precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo >> contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è >> riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il >> messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra >> operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. >> >> This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is >> addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or >> otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by >> European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this >> e-mail or the information herein by anyone
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Thanks Andrea, I will rename the proposal. I have capacity to support the wps module on this one (as indeed a customer is funding this activity). Jody On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:11 AM Andrea Aime < andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Jody, > checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to > suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which > does not match the actual proposal. > The actual proposal is: > >- Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in gs-wms, >hence, move these two bits in _core_ >- Fold the WPS process in gs-wps-core > > About the move to cover of the WMS/WFS output formats, from a technical > point of view I'm not concerned: > >- The WFS output format will eventually break for large outputs due to >HTTP time outs (needs to be written on disk first, streamed back once >complete), but the same already happens for zipped shapefiles, so nothing >really new >- The WMS output format now honors the rendering time outs, so it >should be fine > > I should however point out that the core of GeoServer is "maintained by > the PSC" so the rest of the PSC should be comfortable having that code in > core, and realize the associated obligation. > > About the move of the WPS process to wps-core, I'm also personally not > deeply concerned, if the documentation > is very clear about the experimental extensions baked into the process (so > doc updates are needed). > I'm however noting the code moving also moves its maintainership from > "nobody" to me (the WPS module maintainer), which I'm not too fond of [1]. > > Since you're making the proposal, I'd like you to step up as co-maintainer > of the code you're trying to push up. For the core bits, as a PSC member, > you're taking that > responsibility automatically anyways. Please step up to co-maintain the > processes once moved in gs-wps-core. > > Cheers > Andrea > > [1] Due to both project and business obligations I'm responsible for way > too many modules already, > something which is too big of a onus on my shoulders, and a big project > liability in case I get sick > or decide to leave. It's something we'll have to address, possibly sooner > rather than later. > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jody Garnett > wrote: > >> Please have a look at >> https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines >> moving different sections of the geopackage community module into the >> appropriate core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps. >> >> The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility >> section which proposes calling out wps geopackage supports for not yet >> finalized extensions. While there is nothing wrong with having geoserver >> specific extensions they should be documented as such (and marked as in >> progress if they are chasing a moving target). If folks feel strongly >> about documentation not being enough warning I can look at leaving these >> geopackage extensions as an optional install. >> >> Jody >> -- >> -- >> Jody Garnett >> > ___ >> Geoserver-devel mailing list >> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel >> > > > -- > > Regards, > > Andrea Aime > > == > GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! > > Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. > == > > Ing. Andrea Aime > @geowolf > Technical Lead > > GeoSolutions Group > phone: +39 0584 962313 > > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > > mob: +39 333 8128928 > > https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ > > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > --- > > Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE > 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si > precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo > contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è > riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il > messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra > operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. > > This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is > addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or > otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by > European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this > e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please > notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail > -- -- Jody Garnett ___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP-206 Promote GeoPackage to extension
Hi Jody, checking the proposal, I believe the title is misleading, it seems to suggest a classic module move from community to extension, as is... which does not match the actual proposal. The actual proposal is: - Fold the WFS output format gs-wfs, the WMS output format in gs-wms, hence, move these two bits in _core_ - Fold the WPS process in gs-wps-core About the move to cover of the WMS/WFS output formats, from a technical point of view I'm not concerned: - The WFS output format will eventually break for large outputs due to HTTP time outs (needs to be written on disk first, streamed back once complete), but the same already happens for zipped shapefiles, so nothing really new - The WMS output format now honors the rendering time outs, so it should be fine I should however point out that the core of GeoServer is "maintained by the PSC" so the rest of the PSC should be comfortable having that code in core, and realize the associated obligation. About the move of the WPS process to wps-core, I'm also personally not deeply concerned, if the documentation is very clear about the experimental extensions baked into the process (so doc updates are needed). I'm however noting the code moving also moves its maintainership from "nobody" to me (the WPS module maintainer), which I'm not too fond of [1]. Since you're making the proposal, I'd like you to step up as co-maintainer of the code you're trying to push up. For the core bits, as a PSC member, you're taking that responsibility automatically anyways. Please step up to co-maintain the processes once moved in gs-wps-core. Cheers Andrea [1] Due to both project and business obligations I'm responsible for way too many modules already, something which is too big of a onus on my shoulders, and a big project liability in case I get sick or decide to leave. It's something we'll have to address, possibly sooner rather than later. On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 5:28 AM Jody Garnett wrote: > Please have a look at > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-206 which outlines > moving different sections of the geopackage community module into the > appropriate core module: gs-wfs, gs-wms, and gs-wps. > > The proposal is solid, please make note of the backwards compatibility > section which proposes calling out wps geopackage supports for not yet > finalized extensions. While there is nothing wrong with having geoserver > specific extensions they should be documented as such (and marked as in > progress if they are chasing a moving target). If folks feel strongly > about documentation not being enough warning I can look at leaving these > geopackage extensions as an optional install. > > Jody > -- > -- > Jody Garnett > ___ > Geoserver-devel mailing list > Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel > -- Regards, Andrea Aime == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions Group phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it --- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail ___ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
