Dear all,
I’m still curious about this issue regarding WFS 2.0.0. I’ve discussed and read the standard with some of my colleagues and we are quite confused regarding this specific issue.
First and foremost, in Geoserver the current implementation with an empty ReturnTypeFeature element is considered invalid. This is because this element is of the type QName, which must have contents according to the technical (XML) standards.
However, we feel this is contradicted by the WFS 2.0.2 (most recent) standards document of the OGC. In chapter 14.3.4 Response (of ListFeatureQueries) it states that ReturnFeatureType must appear one or more times in the response. But this section also refers to 14.2 for a more extensive describtion of ReturnFeatureType.
And here is where it gets really complicated. Strictly speaking 14.2 doesn’t mention ReturnFeatureType but only the plural form ReturnFeatureTypes. So, if we treat those two elements as different items, we can conclude that there is no additional information regarding ReturnFeatureType and it just has to comply to xsd:QName, nothing more, nothing less.
But if we treat both those elements as one, than ReturnFeatureType(s) is refered to in 14.2.2.5.2. Where a corrigendum is made in the form of: “If the value of the returnFeatureTypes parameter is an empty string, this indicates that the stored query can return features of any type that the service offers.”. Which clearly states that ReturnFeatureType can have an empty string and thus be an empty element. Only does this clash with xsd:QName and makes the response technically invalid XML.
Also note that in the change request (CR 11-100) that is relevant to this change from 2.0.0 to 2.0.2, the submitter specifically mentions returnFeatureType (the singular word) and not returnFeatureTypes (plural).
Coming back to the issue, you can probably see that we are quite confused regarding this issue, not even bringing up the fact if GeoServer should support WFS 2.0.0 or WFS 2.0.2. In which I guess 2.0.2 would be a better fit.
Currently my question lies in whether what the GeoServer community thinks about this issue and maybe what we can do with it? Also what the most practical thing would be for GeoServer itself and still complying to the standards (whether 2.0.0 or 2.0.2)?
Additional links:
···
2014-11-18 10:49 GMT+01:00 Andrea Aime <andrea.aime@anonymised.com>:
Thanks and kind regards,
Alex van den Hoogen
Geodan
Buitenhaven 27-A
5211 TP 's-Hertogenbosch (NL)
E alex.van.den.hoogen@anonymised.com
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Alex van den Hoogen | Geodan <alex.van.den.hoogen@anonymised.com> wrote:
Currently I’m quite unsure about this issue. Either GeoServer complies with the 2.0.2 standard of WFS, which is the current leading standard. But than there is a slight inconsistency about the version number.
On the other hand, fixing this issue for every FeatureType is, I think, extremely difficult and would affect quite a lot of code.
That’s why I’m curious about other opinions. Especially from Justin and Andrea.
Never looked into stored queries, so … I don’t have an opinion ready, I’d have to study the spec.
Cheers
Andrea
–
==
GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/NWWaa2 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
AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy’s New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the information in this message that has been received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or completeness of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
Minor
