GSIP 236 - Lightening up the Core for GeoServer 3

GeoServer GeoServer Developer
1

Hi all,

as part of the GeoServer 3 tasks, we have been discussing moving less used portions of core to extension, in order to have a lighter GeoServer, while keeping the functionality being moved still available and supported. Here is the proposal:

Please discuss, or if you like it as is, vote.

Cheers
Andrea

2

+1 from me!

1 Like
3

+1 sounds like a good plan to me

Ian

4

+1 already registered

5

+1

Cheers,
Torben

On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 10:40 AM Andrea Aime via OSGeo Discourse <noreply@discourse.osgeo.org> wrote:

aaime-geosolutions
November 17

Hi all,

as part of the GeoServer 3 tasks, we have been discussing moving less used portions of core to extension, in order to have a lighter GeoServer, while keeping the functionality being moved still available and supported. Here is the proposal:

GitHub

GSIP 236

Official GeoServer repository. Contribute to geoserver/geoserver development by creating an account on GitHub.

Please discuss, or if you like it as is, vote.

Cheers
Andrea

Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

6

+1

We should take some care that the release data directory still works out of the box. The arcgrid or world image formats for example are presently required? For many people that leave the same data in their data directory this will require some attention when upgrading.

1 Like
7

Well well well, looks like I’ll have to -1 my own proposal, LOL :rofl:

Checking internally I made two discoveries about WFS:

  • WFS 1.0 is still being requested in tenders (in 2025… yes)
  • WFS 1.1 is required by MapStore, a switch to WFS 2.0 is not currently in the plans (at this point, it would seem wiser to let OGC API - Features mature a bit more and then switch directly to it).

So ouch… what about we split the module anyways, but leave it in core? Downstream customizations can still have an option to avoid using it.

Cheers
Andrea

8

Thanks for this Andrea, now you have my +1.

9

Thanks Andrea, +1.

10

+1 again

11

Hi all,
I forgot to say that the GSIP has been revised following my last feedback (split WFS but keep it in core). Simone and Nuno have re-voted already, @Peter @ianturton @tbarsballe @jive can you recast your vote on the revised version?

Cheers
Andrea

12

Still+1 for me

Ian Turton

On Tue, 25 Nov 2025, 14:39 Andrea Aime via OSGeo Discourse, <noreply@discourse.osgeo.org> wrote:

aaime-geosolutions
November 25

Hi all,
I forgot to say that the GSIP has been revised following my last feedback (split WFS but keep it in core). Simone and Nuno have re-voted already, @Peter @ianturton @tbarsballe @jive can you recast your vote on the revised version?

Cheers
Andrea

Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

13

+1 for the revised version.

-Jukka Rahkonen-

14

That sounds great (and understandable as WFS 1.1.x is more popular due to axis order). At least I saw more last time I did analytics.

+1

15

+1 to the revised proposal

Cheers,
Torben

On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 6:39 AM Andrea Aime via OSGeo Discourse <noreply@discourse.osgeo.org> wrote:

aaime-geosolutions
November 25

Hi all,
I forgot to say that the GSIP has been revised following my last feedback (split WFS but keep it in core). Simone and Nuno have re-voted already, @Peter @ianturton @tbarsballe @jive can you recast your vote on the revised version?

Cheers
Andrea

Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.