Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>> Yeah, that would look nice and would be usable by most clients...
>> the issue is that the list of encodings should be user customizable,
>> there are lots out there. Not sure where we could put that... in a
>> parameter within web.xml maybe?
> Hmmm... adding anothe
> Yeah, that would look nice and would be usable by most clients...
> the issue is that the list of encodings should be user customizable,
> there are lots out there. Not sure where we could put that... in a
> parameter within web.xml maybe?
Hmmm... adding another thing to web.xml for something th
Gabriel Roldan ha scritto:
> Justin Deoliveira escribió:
>> Andrea Aime wrote:
>>
>>> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>>>
Sounds like a good idea. One question though. Do we plan to support
this via POST requests? Adding extensions via GET is easy enough but
once you start doin
Justin Deoliveira escribió:
> Andrea Aime wrote:
>
>> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>>
>>> Sounds like a good idea. One question though. Do we plan to support
>>> this via POST requests? Adding extensions via GET is easy enough but
>>> once you start doing it with xml you have to worry ab
Andrea Aime wrote:
> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>> Sounds like a good idea. One question though. Do we plan to support
>> this via POST requests? Adding extensions via GET is easy enough but
>> once you start doing it with xml you have to worry about schemas and
>> what not... it can get mess
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
> Sounds like a good idea. One question though. Do we plan to support this
> via POST requests? Adding extensions via GET is easy enough but once you
> start doing it with xml you have to worry about schemas and what not...
> it can get messy.
Oh yeah, I was not pl
Sounds like a good idea. One question though. Do we plan to support this
via POST requests? Adding extensions via GET is easy enough but once you
start doing it with xml you have to worry about schemas and what not...
it can get messy.
About the model, it should be backwards compatible. Part of
Gabriel Roldan ha scritto:
> Hi Andrea,
>
> porting format_options seems good, as long as its advertised in the caps.
Gah, more work. Afaik we're not advertising a single extra param in the
caps, not in WFS, nor in WMS.
> BTW, regenerating the code from the emf model in 3.4 _seems to be_ backwar
Hi Andrea,
porting format_options seems good, as long as its advertised in the caps.
BTW, regenerating the code from the emf model in 3.4 _seems to be_ backwards
compatible. At least I had no problem with it doing so for the wfs and ows
bindings in geotools trunk.
Gabriel
On Tuesday 18 November
