Okay; workspace as more of a "workspace" kind of thing then ... I always viewed mapserver "mapfiles" as being this kind of "here is an entire configuration" option - but yeah with their focus on maps a mapfile is all they have to work with.
I am concerned here about growing scope ...
> - can we ignore the idea for now?
We are ignoring it as much as we can for now. The reason it is creeping in is that it has major repercussions as it affects how 1) security and 2) rest are implemented.
- do we need to define this so the user interface designer can work on it? Or help us clarify our thinking
Both.
- can workspace be equated to a data directory?
Not quite, the idea of a workspace is really just a grouping of datastores, similar to what namesapce is now except:
1. No identifiying URI
2. No ties to WFS
- can we have multiple workspaces ...
Yup.
The plan is to hammer out the idea for now so Andrea can work and we can nail down our rest api. But yeah, it will hit again when we do the user interface.
If the idea of a workspace is going to be a first class object; in the users face; and front and center in the new ui we should wrap some scope on it now rather than later...
Done :). its more or less now just mirroring namespace for now. We can worry about actually using it later when rest or ui hits it.
Jody
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel!DSPAM:4007,483b2cfe217753362379201!
--
Justin Deoliveira
The Open Planning Project
jdeolive@anonymised.com