Opened 16 years ago
Closed 15 years ago
#2547 closed enhancement (fixed)
WFS 1.1.0 support
Reported by: | assefa | Owned by: | assefa |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 5.6 release |
Component: | WFS Server | Version: | svn-trunk (development) |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | wfs 1.1.0 |
Cc: | mapserverbugs, tomkralidis, bartvde@…, warmerdam, sdlime |
Description
General bug to trac/discuss support of WFS 1.1.0
Change History (18)
comment:1 by , 16 years ago
Component: | MapServer C Library → WFS Server |
---|---|
Owner: | changed from | to
comment:2 by , 16 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Keywords: | wfs 1.1.0 added |
Owner: | changed from | to
comment:3 by , 16 years ago
comment:4 by , 16 years ago
Status: | new → assigned |
---|
I saw the part of wcs 1.1 implementation is done in wcs11.c. I like the idea of separating part of this development in two separate files (specifically those parts dealing with ows and libxml). I would like to use the same approach and create a mapwfs11.c. I am not sure though that using 11 is the best idea.
comment:6 by , 16 years ago
I though maybe that we may end up using the same file for 1.2 if there is no major change.
comment:7 by , 16 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
Depends. What's our strategy here? Do we push each version to a new file (that could get hefty). Which level in version numbering do we declare a new file is needed (i.e. mapwcs11.c has both 1.1.0 and 1.1.1 support). Frank's mapwcs11.c uses some of mapwcs.c code for some of the operations.
Or do we have one big mapwfs.c?
I've cc'd Frank and Steve, as I think we're beginning to see a "next generation" of OGC standards which uses OWS Common, and the underlying supporting standards (SLD, FES), which has resulted in, for MapServer, 1./ new functionality 2./ new "common" approaches. In other words, this issue will hit most, if not all, of the OGC stuff in our codebase.
Oh, and just wait until you see the joint ISO/OGC WFS Committee Draft (WFS 2.0, I believe), which won't be on the street for quite awhile -- lotsa fun!
comment:8 by , 16 years ago
I would note, I setup a wcs11 file because the 1.1 implementation was almost completely distinct from the 1.0 implementation because of dramatic changes in the protocol, and the move to using the libxml for WCS 1.1 (due mainly to the OWS common sharing).
So I think a new file makes sense when it is allmost all new impelmentation, but that we should aim to keep versions together when the changes are less dramatic.
I would hope that WCS 1.2 will be implemented in mapwcs11.c.
comment:9 by , 16 years ago
Tom,
My comments about the "11" naming was only to indicate that we will probably use the same mapwfs11.c for next upgrades such as wfs 1.2 if there are no major changes. I don't think we would have a new file per ogc release unless there is a compelling reason.
follow-up: 12 comment:10 by , 16 years ago
added wfs11.c : support for getcapabilities and describefeature
follow-up: 13 comment:11 by , 16 years ago
You mean mapwfs11.c I assume. Is you work on WFS 1.1 preserving the various GML metadata configuration I put in place for WFS 1.0? That affects the GML output but also the metadata production.
Steve
follow-up: 14 comment:12 by , 16 years ago
comment:13 by , 16 years ago
Replying to sdlime:
You mean mapwfs11.c I assume. Is you work on WFS 1.1 preserving the various GML metadata configuration I put in place for WFS 1.0? That affects the GML output but also the metadata production.
Steve
I have not looked yet at specifics regarding the GetFeature support but the intention is to preserve what we have now. I will update this bug regarding any issues that I see.
comment:14 by , 16 years ago
Assefa: I checked the GetCapabilities output and fixed wfs:Keywords to be ows:Keywords. The output now validates (see r7479).
As well, I added wfs:MetadataURL support (as we already support this for 1.0.0)
Thanks Tom.
comment:15 by , 16 years ago
Assefa: For completeness, those changes also affect describeFeature (e.g. if you rename some field then the schema should also reflect that change).
Steve
comment:16 by , 16 years ago
Steve,
Looking into the wfs getfeature/decribefeaturetype, we do not generate a wfs:featurecollection container but rather ms:msFeatureCollection (by default). Is there a reason why we should not generate a wfs collection for wfs1.1 support?
comment:17 by , 16 years ago
I don't recall the reason, perhaps Tom can refresh my memory as he helped with validation issues during that period. I believe it had to do with some circuitous XML schema imports that caused a problem returning GML 3 with WFS 1.0. There is some discussion in section 5.1.3 in this document:
http://maps.dnr.state.mn.us/mapserver_docs/wfs_tutorial/index.html
Perhaps WFS has removed this limitation and a different default makes sense. I think it still makes sense to retain the existing level of configurability though.
Steve
comment:18 by , 15 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
The support was added. Will open new bugs for any specific issues.
Initial notes: