Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Hello Simone, Andrea, Anyone who is interested, I closed all the ISO related PR's and will be making a new one for the split. I just left two PR's open related to the CSW work that are not directly iso-related (1) https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/3346 a very trivial one that add

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Make a microservice :) El vie., 3 de may. de 2019 a la(s) 04:47, Simone Giannecchini ( simone.giannecch...@geo-solutions.it) escribió: > That summarises well my proposal. > > Of course, I am open to hear other options from you, if you have any > to put on the table. > > Regards, > Simone Giannecc

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Okay, great news. Just to be clear: the majority of current PR's should be closed, and replaced by a PR that factors out the iso metadata profile. Changes to the csw core/api modules should be kept to an absolute minimum. Is that correct? Regards Niels On 02/05/2019 18:30, Simone Giannecchi

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

That summarises well my proposal. Of course, I am open to hear other options from you, if you have any to put on the table. Regards, Simone Giannecchini == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services for more information. == Ing. Simone Giannecchini @simogeo

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Hi Niels, that would be ideal yes Cheers Andrea On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:43 AM Niels Charlier wrote: > Okay, great news. Just to be clear: the majority of current PR's should > be closed, and replaced by a PR that factors out the iso metadata > profile. Changes to the csw core/api modules shoul

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Dear All, talked to Andrea, here is our suggestion: - Niels to prepare a PR to factor our the ISO Record Support into a community module so he is free to do whatever he needs. Then we can merge it back as/if needed. - Andrea will help out with the pending PR from Niels as well as with eventual PR a

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Thanks, Simone On 01/05/2019 22:09, Simone Giannecchini wrote: Hi All, we (as in GeoSolutions) use it together with MapStore so I would be mildly against a downgrade while I would not to factor out the ISO module (which looks promising btw). Please, allow me some time to talk to Andrea and the o

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Hi All, we (as in GeoSolutions) use it together with MapStore so I would be mildly against a downgrade while I would not to factor out the ISO module (which looks promising btw). Please, allow me some time to talk to Andrea and the other guys here to find a solution that won't block Niels but which

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Hi, I thought I was co-maintaining the module because I had part in its initial development, but looking at its promotion proposal, there is no mention of maintainers: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-99 and some associated discussion threads: http://osgeo-org.1560.x6.nabble.com/G

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW

Hello Gabriel, Indeed, I thought of this as well and did hint at this option somewhere but I guess it was lost in between embarrassing bickering that made up most of the thread. I like the idea, but I would like to avoid duplicating all of the CSW module code. My suggestion would be to sep

[Geoserver-devel] CSW

Glanced at all the outstanding CSW extension pull requests. It happens from time to time that a given extension has no official maintainer, but it keeps being an extension because people might be using it, right? By the other hand, Niels is actively working on it but noone has the time to review/

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW and checking spatial filters

I would say given that we haven't officially released it yet I would be +1 on backporting the api change in the interest of keeping the two branches consistent. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Justin Deoliveira > wrote: > >> Sounds reasonab

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW and checking spatial filters

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Sounds reasonable to me but I will let Niels chime in. > > Regarding the backport is there a reason not to backport it to 2.4.x? > Thinking it is best to not diverge unless the code on master is unstable > (which doesn't seem to be the ca

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW and checking spatial filters

Sounds good to me. On 22/08/13 21:18, Justin Deoliveira wrote: Sounds reasonable to me but I will let Niels chime in. Regarding the backport is there a reason not to backport it to 2.4.x? Thinking it is best to not diverge unless the code on master is unstable (which doesn't seem to be the ca

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW and checking spatial filters

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Sounds reasonable to me but I will let Niels chime in. > > Regarding the backport is there a reason not to backport it to 2.4.x? > Thinking it is best to not diverge unless the code on master is unstable > (which doesn't seem to be the ca

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW and checking spatial filters

Sounds reasonable to me but I will let Niels chime in. Regarding the backport is there a reason not to backport it to 2.4.x? Thinking it is best to not diverge unless the code on master is unstable (which doesn't seem to be the case here) so that future backports remain trivial. $0.02 On Thu,

[Geoserver-devel] CSW and checking spatial filters

Hi, as you may know a CSW should check the GetRecord incoming filters for validity, one of the checks we do is verify that spatial filters are actually hitting spatial properties. The current code uses a SpatialFilterChecker which works fine for the csw:Record case, and I guess is working fine for

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On 22/08/13 18:16, Andrea Aime wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Niels Charlier > wrote: Yes you were right, sorry about that, a fix has been pull requested. 2.4.x request updated. Hi, had a quick look at the extension, now it contains a number of packa

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

Thank you, Andrea On 22/08/13 18:47, Andrea Aime wrote: On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Niels Charlier > wrote: On 22/08/13 18:16, Andrea Aime wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Niels Charlier mailto:ni...@scitus.be>> wrote: Yes you were right, s

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > On 22/08/13 18:16, Andrea Aime wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > >> Yes you were right, sorry about that, a fix has been pull requested. >> 2.4.x request updated. >> > > Hi, > had a quick look at the

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > >> Yes you were right, sorry about that, a fix has been pull requested. >> 2.4.x request updated. >> > > Hi, > had a quick look at the extension, now it contains a number of packaged

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 10:48 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > Yes you were right, sorry about that, a fix has been pull requested. > 2.4.x request updated. > Hi, had a quick look at the extension, now it contains a number of packaged schemas normally used for app-schema. I guess they are needed fo

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On 20/08/13 14:37, Andrea Aime wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Andrea Aime mailto:andrea.a...@geo-solutions.it>> wrote: Hi Niels, this pull request was merged on master yesterday and today we have the results of the nightly build. As far as I can see there are issue

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Andrea Aime wrote: > Hi Niels, > this pull request was merged on master yesterday and today we have the > results of > the nightly build. > As far as I can see there are issues with the zip contents: > > http://gridlock.opengeo.org/geoserver/trunk/ext-latest/geoser

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > Yes, a pull request has just been made for this: > > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/299 > Hi Niels, this pull request was merged on master yesterday and today we have the results of the nightly build. As far as I can see ther

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

Done https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/300 On 19/08/13 16:15, Andrea Aime wrote: On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Niels Charlier > wrote: Yes, a pull request has just been made for this: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/299 I believe you'l

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > Yes, a pull request has just been made for this: > > https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/299 > I believe you'll have to make one for 2.4.x too, which was branched off yesterday. At this point it should just be a cherry-pick away

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

Yes, a pull request has just been made for this: https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/pull/299 Kind Regards Niels On 18/08/13 14:52, Andrea Aime wrote: Hi, I was looking at the release notes and noticed that CSW is not yet in extension despite the positive vote for the associated GSIP Do

[Geoserver-devel] CSW did not make it into extension by RC1

Hi, I was looking at the release notes and noticed that CSW is not yet in extension despite the positive vote for the associated GSIP Do you think it will make it by RC2? Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Andrea A

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > Okay so I am going to conclude that we go with Justin's proposal to put > the internal store in to core. The other thing is, should I keep its name > or rename it to DefaultCatalogStore? > I'd use a name making it evident the info comes

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

Okay so I am going to conclude that we go with Justin's proposal to put the internal store in to core. The other thing is, should I keep its name or rename it to DefaultCatalogStore? Regards Niels On 12/07/2012 05:50 PM, Andrea Aime wrote: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Niels Charlier

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > >> Could the current work be committed, so that we can have a look at it? >> >> > https://github.com/**NielsCharlier/geoserver.git > branch: cswpublic > So yeah, looking at the sources I belie

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

> > Could the current work be committed, so that we can have a look at it? > https://github.com/NielsCharlier/geoserver.git branch: cswpublic relies on https://github.com/NielsCharlier/geotools.git branch: csw -- LogMeIn

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Niels Charlier wrote: > > Right... i guess it would help to know what the classpath overhead is > in terms of additional dependencies, etc... of the internal store is. As > far as i can see it looks to be pretty minimal, no additional libs and just > a handful of

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

Right... i guess it would help to know what the classpath overhead is in terms of additional dependencies, etc... of the internal store is. As far as i can see it looks to be pretty minimal, no additional libs and just a handful of classes. @Niels: do I have that right? Yes, i only depends

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > Second option, the one you propose. Similar to the above, wit the extra >> baggage in the classpath >> >> Third option, do as one (all stores out by default), but put in the >> extension package all implementations >> and create a "composi

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Andrea Aime wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Justin Deoliveira > wrote: > >> I was thinking that once the "internal" store was completed it would be >> basically included with the core module, and serve as the default so that >> without more or less zero c

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Justin Deoliveira wrote: > I was thinking that once the "internal" store was completed it would be > basically included with the core module, and serve as the default so that > without more or less zero configuration you could fire up geoserver and > have a working

Re: [Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

I was thinking that once the "internal" store was completed it would be basically included with the core module, and serve as the default so that without more or less zero configuration you could fire up geoserver and have a working csw. If others agree with that approach the name "default" probabl

[Geoserver-devel] CSW Module Structure

Hi Everyone, I am currently wrapping up the CSW work. The ISO MetaData has been fully implemented and I'm now doing the final touches. One question that arose was about the module structure. So far we had chosen for the following structure. There are four modules: * csw-api : interfaces and bas