Re: GALEON report

• To: Peter Baumann <p.baumann@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Subject: Re: GALEON report
• From: Lorenzo Bigagli <lorenzo.bigagli@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:18:41 +0100

Hi Peter (and others),

as I wrote in the wiki, we have recently tested your server with our WCS 
Browser Lite and can report the following: as by your wsdl, you implement WCS 
as a SOAP rpc/encoded service. On the other hand, WCS Browser Lite expects a 
document/literal service (so is WCS-G, for instance); this is of course a major 
interoperability problem (ehr, wasn't SOAP meant for helping out?)

Apart from discussing the pros and cons of  the various options, I think 
this is a valuable result in itself: it is probably time for a standard WCS wsdl.

BTW, I remember you were implementing WCS 1.1 specs: is it so? In this case, we 
would have some problems more, since we only address WCS 1.0 (pre-amended... :-)

Regards,
L

Hello Martin,

thanks for trying our service! Yes indeed, we fully bought us into
SOAP. However, as you only seem to need a GetCap request in non-SOAP,
Ivan is about to implement a GET type GetCap. Unfortunately with
resources given we can't change the GetCov to a GET request; the
problem is that axis is the (SOAP-) wrapper around the service, so we'd
need to re-interface.

Ivan will inform you when he has finished the GetCap using GET,
hopefully we then get a step further.

...in addition to this thread:
anybody out there having a SOAP based client?

thanks,
Peter

• References:
  • RE: GALEON report
    • From: Martin Daly
  • Re: GALEON report
    • From: Peter Baumann