[Geoserver-devel] Graduating WCS 2.0 to... where?

GeoServer GeoServer Developer
1

Hi,
I’ve just wrote a proposal to graduate the WCS 2.0 module:
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+102±++Promoting+WCS+2.0+module+and+the+WCS+2.0+EO+module+to+extension+status

Now, the proposal asks to graduate the WCS 2.0 module, and the WCS 2.0 Earth Observation profile module to extension status.
But writing it I was wondering… what if the WCS 2.0 module (base, non EO) is made core instead?

Cons: it’s new
Pros: it’s a major OGC protocol, and has no service limits issue like WPS (WCS 2.0 respects the same input/output coverage
limits as 1.0 and 1.1), we have the precedent of WCS 1.0 and WCS 1.1 going directly into core, and the protocol is easier
to use than the previous versions

Not really pushing for core, but I’m wondering how other people feel about the idea

Cheers
Andrea

–

== Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information ==

Ing. Andrea Aime

@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

2

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Andrea Aime <andrea.aime@anonymised.com>wrote:

Hi,
I've just wrote a proposal to graduate the WCS 2.0 module:

http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/GSIP+102+-++Promoting+WCS+2.0+module+and+the+WCS+2.0+EO+module+to+extension+status

Now, the proposal asks to graduate the WCS 2.0 module, and the WCS 2.0
Earth Observation profile module to extension status.
But writing it I was wondering... what if the WCS 2.0 module (base, non
EO) is made core instead?

Cons: it's new
Pros: it's a major OGC protocol, and has no service limits issue like WPS
(WCS 2.0 respects the same input/output coverage
limits as 1.0 and 1.1), we have the precedent of WCS 1.0 and WCS 1.1 going
directly into core, and the protocol is easier
to use than the previous versions

Not really pushing for core, but I'm wondering how other people feel about
the idea

I am fine with pushing it to core. I think OGC Service implementations are
special in that regard. For instance when we add a new wms or wfs protocol
version we always add it in the core. So +1 on wcs 2.0 directly to core.

Cheers
Andrea

--
== Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for
more information ==

Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead

GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549

http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it

-------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT
organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance
affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your
Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics
Pro!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

--
*Justin Deoliveira*
Vice President, Engineering | Boundless
jdeolive@anonymised.com
@j_deolive <https://twitter.com/j_deolive&gt;