[Pywps-devel] any interest in a wps bakeoff?
luca.casagrande at gmail.com
Mon Jan 31 23:26:38 CET 2011
2011/1/31 Jody Garnett <Jody.Garnett at lisasoft.com>:
> On 01/02/2011, at 8:19 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> Well I agree that that we should use a common email list; but since the osgeo common email list has had three messages since it was set up I thought I would start by talking to individual projects first.
>> What we can do on this list is brainstorm (as per your other email) what we would like to see out of such an exercise. If we can sort out what we want/expect out of talking to other projects it will go a bit smoother.
> Personally I would like promotion; both of wps as a viable solution ... and of myself (I will need a job when I return to north america :-)
> To that end having many different implementations really shows the point that the WPS standard is implementable (not all standards are). With respect to being a viable standard showing any kind of interoperability would be great; but especially with clients. Why clients? Showing a hand crafted xml request with a response coming back does not do it for me (it only shows that a process can be executed). For the specification to actually work the service needs to describe things well enough that a client can create a valid request.
> Performance benchmarks are useful for making sales (a platform is more attractive if it performs better and thus uses less hardware and is cheaper to run) ... but frankly that is not where I am worried about the WPS spec falling on its face.
Just like Jorge suggested, I'll start with the WPS OGC implementation tests.
Then we can move to specific tasks.. In Barcellona we talked about a
simple buffer process or something like that.
Should we prepare a list of geoprocessing tasks and for each
implementation check speed, easy to create, and so on?
More information about the Pywps-devel