NOTE: The galeon mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
Roy, an important point you raise! At some point in our WCS discussion we realized that actually a main difficulty is the variety a client has to cope with: a server may choose to implement this or that functionality, but a client should be interoperable to the max, hence needs to be prepared for all variants. Since then we rigorously cut out variants whenever possible. Actually, in a perfect world the only variants we would have are the extension packages - that is, the extension concept would formalize choice. A client, then, upfront asks for the extensions implemented by the server and decides whether it wants to continue conversation or not. Currently we are working on a scheme that groups such extensions organically, as one of our agenda items. -Peter Roy Mendelssohn wrote: > Hi All: > > I think Jon Blower may have mentioned this earlier, but there needs to > be some differentiation in what is required of a server and a client. > While servers may be able to vary (only 2-D or 3-D for example), > there must be a larger minimum set that a client has to implement in > order for there to be interoperability. In code my lab is developing, > we are already running into this problem with WMS. > > -Roy > >
galeon archives: