From: Nhan Vo <nh...@sm...> - 2013-02-14 09:57:37
|
Hi list, I am very thankful WFS 2.0 and Filter 2.0 have been implemented. I'm studying their capabilities and have 2 questions: 1 - I see in the the WFS 2.0 capabilities document that for temporal operators /*AnyInteracts */is not listed. According to the Filter 2.0 specification the definition is as follows: /*Applicable to TM_Period only, the temporal operator fes:AnyInteracts is a shortcut operator semantically equivalent to NOT (Before OR Meets OR MetBy OR After).*/ Because all the necessary operators (NOT, OR, Before, Meets, MetBy, After) are supported, I assume it should be a straightforward matter to simulate /*AnyInteracts */by using these operators when composing the filter, right? Could someone please assert this? Would there be any disadvantages or limitations? 2 - I once used WFS 1.1 of Geoserver in a project and the filter then worked really well. To me it was almost like a fully functional mapping to the SQL conditions without limitations. Does filter 2.0 have any limitations compared with its 1.1 counterpart before? Thank you very much! Regards, Nhan |
From: Andrea A. <and...@ge...> - 2013-02-16 11:15:36
|
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Nhan Vo <nh...@sm...> wrote: > Hi list, > > I am very thankful WFS 2.0 and Filter 2.0 have been implemented. I'm > studying their capabilities and have 2 questions: > > 1 - I see in the the WFS 2.0 capabilities document that for temporal > operators *AnyInteracts *is not listed. According to the Filter 2.0 > specification the definition is as follows: > > *Applicable to TM_Period only, the temporal operator fes:AnyInteracts is > a shortcut operator semantically equivalent to NOT (Before OR Meets OR > MetBy OR After).* > > Because all the necessary operators (NOT, OR, Before, Meets, MetBy, After) > are supported, I assume it should be a straightforward matter to simulate > *AnyInteracts *by using these operators when composing the filter, right? > Could someone please assert this? Would there be any disadvantages or > limitations? > Hmm.. not sure, but I had a quick look into the SQL encoder and indeed this particular temporal filter does not seem to be supported. May well just be an oversight. Justin (cc'ed) implemented temporal filter support, he probably knows more. > > 2 - I once used WFS 1.1 of Geoserver in a project and the filter then > worked really well. To me it was almost like a fully functional mapping to > the SQL conditions without limitations. Does filter 2.0 have any > limitations compared with its 1.1 counterpart before? > No, all WFS versions end up being summarized into the same object model, so a filter is encoded into SQL for WFS 1.1 will be encoded into SQL also for WFS 2.0 Cheers Andrea -- == Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 55054 Massarosa (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 339 8844549 http://www.geo-solutions.it http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- |
From: Justin D. <jde...@op...> - 2013-02-20 16:19:47
|
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Andrea Aime <and...@ge...>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Nhan Vo <nh...@sm...> wrote: > >> Hi list, >> >> I am very thankful WFS 2.0 and Filter 2.0 have been implemented. I'm >> studying their capabilities and have 2 questions: >> >> 1 - I see in the the WFS 2.0 capabilities document that for temporal >> operators *AnyInteracts *is not listed. According to the Filter 2.0 >> specification the definition is as follows: >> >> *Applicable to TM_Period only, the temporal operator fes:AnyInteracts is >> a shortcut operator semantically equivalent to NOT (Before OR Meets OR >> MetBy OR After).* >> >> Because all the necessary operators (NOT, OR, Before, Meets, MetBy, >> After) are supported, I assume it should be a straightforward matter to >> simulate *AnyInteracts *by using these operators when composing the >> filter, right? Could someone please assert this? Would there be any >> disadvantages or limitations? >> > > Hmm.. not sure, but I had a quick look into the SQL encoder and indeed > this particular temporal filter > does not seem to be supported. > May well just be an oversight. Justin (cc'ed) implemented temporal filter > support, he probably knows more. > > Yeah, looks like an oversight. The filter class exists and is implemented as per the spec but its not listed in the caps doc (which happens statically) and not handled natively by any datastores. > >> 2 - I once used WFS 1.1 of Geoserver in a project and the filter then >> worked really well. To me it was almost like a fully functional mapping to >> the SQL conditions without limitations. Does filter 2.0 have any >> limitations compared with its 1.1 counterpart before? >> > > No, all WFS versions end up being summarized into the same object model, > so a filter is encoded into SQL for WFS 1.1 will be > encoded into SQL also for WFS 2.0 > > Cheers > Andrea > > -- > == > Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more > information. > == > > Ing. Andrea Aime > @geowolf > Technical Lead > > GeoSolutions S.A.S. > Via Poggio alle Viti 1187 > 55054 Massarosa (LU) > Italy > phone: +39 0584 962313 > fax: +39 0584 1660272 > mob: +39 339 8844549 > > http://www.geo-solutions.it > http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it > > ------------------------------------------------------- > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. |