Re: [Geotools-devel] Versioning WFS-T and protocol extensions

[Jo W. <jo...@fr...>]

dear Justin, all,
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 11:45:24AM -0800, Justin Deoliveira wrote:
> Considering that not many people implement wfs altogether, I dont think
> a ton of people will implement wfs-t. I agree that a simple protocol is
> a big win, but not if it starts to reek havoc with existing clients.

Have you considered WFS transaction and versioning over WFS Simple?
http://www.ogcnetwork.net/wfssimple

WFS Simple is designed to have a lot more appeal to casual implementors. 
OpenStreetmap.org is one project that's been WFS-T curious for awhile
but found the spec overhead combined with the lack of versioning /
history support, unappealing. But they would benefit hugely from
being able to plug into more generic drawing client support than their
current interface allows ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/REST )

While the apogee for a specification is inclusion in geoserver or 
mapserver, it would be great if what came out of the geoserver WFS-TV
efforts *was* appealing to and implementable by a ton of people...

cheers,


jo