I do, however, think that having a Geoserver-for-Geotools-2.1 and
Geoserver-for-Geotools-2.2 is going to be a pain. I'd like to wait
until after 1.3.0's release before we do that, but if a need
arises....
My main concern is just there being an overhead in maintaining the two
branches.
I have the same fear...
But, instead, why don't you skip the intermediate steps and, after 1.3.0
FINAL,
directly go for a 2.0.x, with plugin and GT 2.2.x support???
Or at least for a 1.9.x, based on GT 2.2.x and only a limited/simple plugin
support as a start???
If you think about the timings of it all, it may be a valuable stake after
all...
Some one was also asking about geoserver being web-only.
Although I see
geoserver being web-only, I'd like to minimize the amount of actually
HTTP code in it. The sub-modules (ie. WFS, WMS, WCS, ...) should be
fairly detached from the HTTP environment. Anything they require from
the HTTP request should be explicitly stuck in the Request
object(s).
I completely agree with this!!!
I would also like to see more and more stuff moved from Geoserver into
Geotools, but the new plugin stuff (for 2.0) is suppose to make that
both optional and easy-to-migrate.
I'm just starting wondering what will remain in GeoServer if more and more
code is going to move into GeoTools...
So, in summary:
* I'd like to not see geoserver branch, but its probably inevitable.
Ideally, i'd like to see this happen AFTER 1.3.0 releases (ie. about
the same time Geotools FT changes happen). I'm open for other options
so that others can continue their work.
I agree with you. Our branch will start before 1.3.0 FINAL, but it will
still be GT 2.1.x based.
* I'd also like to see TransactionReponse refactored, just to make it
understandable (ie. maintainable), but also so that others (ie. Paolo)
can "plugin" their special-task code (ie. everyone working on the same
codebase, but different groups will have certain functionality).
This would probably be the first thing I'm going to do, so I'll try to
keep in mind flexibility/pluggability, so it may come out useful for others.
Obviously only after an eventual merge with GeoServer trunk...
* Geotools doesn't want any new development on 2.1.x, so anything new
you plan to do in Geotools needs to happen on Geotools trunk.
We're getting away with this by temporarily putting new things inside
our GeoServer branch, then we'll see...
* doing something and hoping that someone else will integrate it
"properly" will never happen.
...ok, I've been naive... So if some part of our work will be judged
interesting, we'll integrate it. It's just that someone else
should decide about it and tell us, at least, where to put it.
* Highly encourage people to "work together" since, in the
long run, its
less work.
Yes, that's true!!!
Dave
PS. Paolo (and whomever else), whats your time frame for what you're
doing?
We're quite time-tight by now, we must produce something as soon as
possible...
It seems that what is now present in GT 2.1.x/GS 1.3.x is enough for us,
so we're going to stay with them in the short term, maybe for the
remaining months of 2005 or so. After that we'd like to upgrade to newer
versions, before going for final release. After that it'll be maintenance,
but we may not need adding any new relevant functionality.