At 03:06 PM 9/30/2003 -0400, Chris Holmes wrote:
Apologies for the large cross-post, please direct replies to
geoserver-devel@anonymised.com
OK, I'm replying just to this list from now on. This is the first time I've posted to the geoserver list, so hi all.
1. How much integration do we want? I think common configuration would be
nice to have, so that both services could use the same configuration
files. GetCapabilities responses and Exception handling also seem like
they have some overlap, so we might try to combine those classes. We can
talk more specifics on the geoserver devel list.
I have to say that we should be aiming for as much integration as possible. At the same time we should probably thinking about being as generic as possible so that we can slot in other WxS implementations in the future.
2. Maven on GeoServer? The GeoServer project currently uses ant, which is
nice and fast, and currently easier to get working (though maven 1.0 may
prove that wrong).
Many of the problems in using Maven with the GeoTools build come from the fact that it has a multi-project structure (all the separate modules). GeoServer should be a lot easier to setup with maven.
I'm a bit inclined to stay with ant, but if someone (James?) is
willing to set it up and no one's against the change I'll go along.
I'll give it a shot and point to something that people can experiment with, I'm not against staying with Ant, but I'd like to give maven a shot (I think the SNAPSHOT tracking ability will be a bonus).
3. Package names for the gt2wms. Do we want to keep the geotools package
names, since that's where the code comes from? Or do we want to make a
org.vfny.geoserver.wms package? Or if we're going for a lot of
integration we could make org.vfny.geoserver.requests.wms and
org.vfny.geoserver.responses.wms, and put all the common config code in
org.vfny.geoserver.config. And we can obviously start with one and move
things around if and when we actually acheive integration.
I'd say drop the gt2wms package name asap, as for what it should be after that, no idea.
4. Distribution and Marketing. These questions are not pressing, but how
do we want to present the wms? Should we make it available as a
stand-alone wms? Keep the downloadable war format? Integrate it
completely into GeoServer? Create seperate installation instructions?
Many of these questions depend on how much we integrate, but even if we do
integrate a lot we can still have them live as slightly different projects
in user's minds, just ones that inter-operate quite well.
At this point I'd favour it becoming a single project, GeoServer is a nice generic name that covers WMS and WFS well. I guess this is more an issue for the GeoServer people, but as one of the authors of the WMS code I have no problem with it loosing its own identity.
All the best
James
