Linda and I have been thinking along the same lines.
Our WFS-Basic (I HATE Simple:) generates GeoRSS Feeds but will also accepts
a GeoRSS feed as input for transaction.
There are some major limitations and assumptions to make but I think that
this is acceptable for Basic functionality.
> From: Jo Walsh <jo@...>
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:15:16 -0800
> To: Chris Holmes <cholmes@...>
> Cc: Geoserver-devel <geoserver-devel@...>,
> <wfsbasic.users@...>, Geotools-Devel list
> <geotools-devel@...>, <mikel.maron@...>
> Subject: Re: [WFSBasic.Users] [Geotools-devel] Versioning WFS-T and protocol
> dear Chris, thanks for your prompt and full response,
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 06:37:16PM -0500, Chris Holmes wrote:
>> I would love it if we could include our ideas on transactions and
>> versioning and the like in WFS-Simple, but unfortunately I do fear that
>> when you get in to transactions, authentication, and versioning you're
>> no longer in 'simple' land (indeed I myself might argue against their
>> place in a simple spec).
> Then 'Simple' is kind of a misnomer. 'Basic' was the original name,
> right? I would have thought being able to write a feature to a web
> feature service was a fairly basic operation ;P
> You don't need much of the rest of WFS, right, to do Transactions?
> Like Filter support and POST queries, GML comprehension and emission,
> all these non-Simple things. The question is not "why should it be
> WFS-T" but "why shouldn't it also be this other, kind of WFS-like thing"
>> what we're doing to help make it more accessible. I'm definitely open
>> to a REST API that works against the same backend, if that's what's
>> needed for 'easy'. Right now we're just extending WFS-T, since there
>> are clients that implement it already, as opposed to something we just
>> invent, which may not.
> So WFS Simple can be seen just as a more RESTful, geowebbish WFS.
> So perhaps i should be having this argument with their discuss list,
> and not with you, about Simple implementation of transactions, and use
> of the interface for versioning that you are describing, because
> transactions without versions are ... like roses without thorns ...
> just spammable with worms ... er perhaps i'll try this again in the
> morning :) There will only be clients if there are services, and either
> way this is partially going to be something you 'just invent'...
> Nod, i was looking earlier, the extensions are clearly documented but
> what would be really helpful would be sample query strings
> showing them being used in a request...
>> We're trying making it as easy as possible. But if you have feedback to
>> help us on making it even easier, we're all ears, for sure.
> No, i'm just kibitzing rather than really offering useful suggestions.
>> Perhaps WFS
>> Simple first needs to define what a simple transaction is, make a better
>> interface than the current WFS, and then we can build versioning on top
>> of that? Though I have maintained that the Transaction portion of the
>> spec is actually quite nice - maybe 'Simple' could just make it so it
>> doesn't stress about namespace and gml validation and all...
> This makes a lot of sense... if enough people can consider it in-remit
> for Simple... :)
> WFSBasic.Users mailing list