Hi Andrea, List,
So I'm giving acceptversions a try and have come across quite a number
of issues. I don't think they're my mistakes, but please do correct me
if they are.
These are all against a 2.12.0 deployment
A) WCS AcceptVersions only accepts version 2.0.0 or 2.0.1
?request=getCapabilities&service=WCS&acceptversions=1.1.1
What I expect is a WCS 1.1.1 spec. What I get is a WCS 2.0 exception:
<ows:Exception exceptionCode="NoApplicableCode">
<ows:ExceptionText>
java.io.IOExceptionjava.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Not a
GetCapabilitiesType:
net.opengis.wcs20.impl.GetCapabilitiesTypeImpl@7416780e (updateSequence:
null, baseUrl: http://inspire.misoportal.com:80/geoserver/) (service:
WCS) Not a GetCapabilitiesType:
net.opengis.wcs20.impl.GetCapabilitiesTypeImpl@7416780e (updateSequence:
null, baseUrl: http://inspire.misoportal.com:80/geoserver/) (service:
WCS) []
</ows:ExceptionText>
For all my tests it produces an exception if 2.0.0 or 2.0.1 isn't
somewhere in the acceptVersions parameter.
B) If the request is changed to 1.0.0, the request becomes:
?request=getCapabilities&service=WCS&AcceptVersions=1.0.0,0.8.3
(That's copied-and-pasted the example from the OWSCS spec itself)
The Exception is 2.0
<ows:Exception exceptionCode="VersionNegotiationFailed">
<ows:ExceptionText>Could not find any matching version
[]</ows:ExceptionText>
</ows:Exception>
Which seems like it's mis-representing me, I didn't required "version
[]", I requested 1.0.0
C) Behaviour changes again if I throw back in the "version" parameter.
The spec says it should be ignored if acceptversions is there. It turns
out the AcceptVersions and version must match or you get an exception:
This request:
?request=getCapabilities&service=WCS&acceptversions=1.0.0,2.0.0&version=1.1.1
brings back a WCS 1.1.0 exception:
<ows:Exception exceptionCode="VersionNegotiationFailed">
<ows:ExceptionText>
Could not find any matching version [1.0.0, 2.0.0] in supported list:
[1.0.0, 2.0.0]
</ows:ExceptionText>
But these two work as expected
request=getCapabilities&service=WCS&acceptversions=1.0.0,2.0.0&version=2.0.0
request=getCapabilities&service=WCS&acceptversions=1.0.0,2.0.0&version=1.0.0
-----
WMS doesn't do acceptVersions as best I can see in the specs and
correctly ignores that parameter.
-----
WFS seems better than WCS. I'm not sure what to expect for this response
- I'm using AcceptVersions which is a WFS 2.0.0 to request a 1.1.0 page
(which didn't support it). I suspect I should get the 1.1.0 response,
but the response is the 2.0.0 spec:
?request=getCapabilities&service=WFS&acceptversions=1.1.0,2.0.0,1.0.0 -
returns the 2.0.0 spec
That said, GeoServer still ignores the acceptversions in this request
and returns a 1.1.0 spec because that's what "version" is asking for -
the spec says it should be 2.0.0
?request=getCapabilities&service=WFS&acceptversions=2.0.0&version=1.1.0
If these seem valid I'll update the ticket or create new a one if desired.
For my own purposes I think it's safest if I switch back to just
"version" and don't include "AcceptVersions " at all.
Cheers,
Jonathan
p.s. - the Above is non-exhaustive manual testing. Some good unit-tests
across all services may get more.
On 2018-03-30 19:27, Jonathan Moules wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Ok, I was getting quite confused there for a bit, but I've figured out
what's going on now. The WCS specs build on another specification -
"OGC Web Services Common Specification" - and *that* is the place they
talk about version negotiation. I had assumed because it wasn't
specified it just built on the previous version (that being 1.0.0).
And you are (of course) correct, they have indeed replaced Version
with AcceptVersions. Thanks for the correction!
> WCS 1.0 is probably based on 1.0, WCS 1.1 still probably based on
OWS 1.0 but not sure, WCS 2.0 I believe is based on OWS 2.0
If you're curious, WCS 1.0 doesn't seem to be based on any - probably
why it declares that stuff explicitly. WCS 1.1 is OWSC 1.0, WCS 1.1.1
and 1.1.2 are OWSC 1.1.1, and of course WCS 2 is OWSC 2. "Fun fun"
indeed! :-)
> it's not part of the OGC specifications. As such, it's free to
behave as it pleases when you use it.
It's probably me again, but the OWSC subclause D.11 (both version 1.1
and 2.0, (it's subclause C.11 in 1.0)) does seem to cover these
scenarios and does have provision for what to do if "version" is set.
This seems to be the pertinent part:
"""
A server may also optionally implement the old-style version
negotiation mechanism so
that old clients that send GetCapabilities requests containing a
“version” parameter can
be served. If both a “version” and an AcceptVersions parameter exist
in a GetCapabilities
request, the server shall ignore the “version” parameter.
a) The old-style version negotiation process using the GetCapabilities
operation is as
follows: The client initially makes a GetCapabilities operation
request identifying the
latest version it supports, and then the server responds to
GetCapabilities operation
requests:
1) If no version number is specified in the request, the server shall
respond with the
highest version it supports.
2) If the version number specified in the request is supported by the
server, the
server shall respond with that version.
3) If the version number specified in the request is lower than the
lowest version
supported by the server, the server shall respond with the lowest
version that it
supports.
4) If the version number specified in the request is higher than the
lowest version
supported by the server, the server shall respond with the highest
version it
supports that is lower than the requested version.
"""
So while it's optional, it does seem to be specified what to do if the
option is implemented. If I'm reading this right, this scenario falls
under item (4).
But yes, this was mostly just a curious aside before I got drawn into
the exciting world of OGC standards!
Thanks again!
Jonathan
On 2018-03-30 18:26, Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
as said above, using "version" in GetCapabilities is a GeoServer
vendor extension, it's not part of the OGC specifications.
As such, it's free to behave as it pleases when you use it.
The version negotiation protocol is described in the various OWS
documents, each version of a protocol
is based on a different version of OWS, e.g., WCS 1.0 is probably
based on 1.0, WCS 1.1 still probably
based on OWS 1.0 but not sure, WCS 2.0 I believe is based on OWS 2.0
(fun fun):
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/common
Go look for "GetCapabilities request KVP encoding" or something
similar to find the requested behavior
Cheers
Andrea
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:20 PM, Jonathan Moules
<jonathan-li...@lightpear.com <mailto:jonathan-li...@lightpear.com>>
wrote:
Hi Andrea,
Interesting, I'd not come across AcceptBersions before. A quick
search through the WCS specs (Ctrl-F) indicates it first appears
in 1.1.0, then the 1.1.1, and 1.1.2, and finally a single
reference in 2.0.1. However none of them actually seem to explain
it (they're either UML or XML examples), though I can guess what
it does.
I've opened a ticket for it (8670).
(Incidentally, it's my first ticket using this new portal and I
have to say - it's a real chore. Absurdly slow page loads, lots
of login/redirect problems across two browsers, and once logged
in it's non-obvious how to create a ticket.
Also, I there was a big friendly "ACCESS DENIED" which may be as
a result of the link I followed to get there - it's repeatable
for me if I use the link from here to login -
https://osgeo-org.atlassian.net/projects/GEOS/summary - the
sign-up link there has the word "admin" in the URL, so I wonder
if you're trying to get people to log in to the admin account by
accident?)
Thanks,
Jonathan
On 2018-03-30 17:33, Andrea Aime wrote:
Hi Jonathan,
there migth well be some issue in version negotiation, but the
parameter to be used normally
is acceptVersions, not version (version works for any other call
but GetCapabiltiies, GeoServer still uses it
in case there is an exact match). That might play a role too.
Cheers
Andrea
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Jonathan Moules
<jonathan-li...@lightpear.com> wrote:
Hi List,
I have a version negotiation question for WCS.
I'm making GetCapabilities requests to various public boxes
for WCS version 1.1.2, and GeoServer doesn't seem to support
this particular version. GeoServer seems to go from 1.1.1,
then straight to 2.0.1; I guess that's what got funded.
The odd thing is in this scenario, GeoServer is
returning the 2.0.1 GetCap. I would have expected the 1.1.1
GetCapabilities.
The only WCS spec I can see that discusses version
negotiation is the WCS 1.0.0 spec. Section 6.2.4 says:
" If no version number is specified in the request, the
server must respond with the highest version it understands
and label the response accordingly."
Ok, but I *did* specify a version number. My query is
something like:
http://example.com/geoserver/ows?request=GetCapabilities&service=WCS&version=1.1.2
<http://example.com/geoserver/ows?request=GetCapabilities&service=WCS&version=1.1.2>
So these are the negotiation rules in the spec:
"a) If the server implements the requested version
number, the server must send that version.
b) If a version unknown to the server is requested, the
server must send the highest version it knows that is less
than the requested version.
c) If the client request is for a version lower than any
of those known to the server, then the server must send the
lowest version it knows.
[snip]"
So my question is, which of these rules is triggering?
To my mind it should be rule (b) - I'm requesting an unknown
number, so the server should be returning the highest
version that's *less* than it, so 1.1.1.
Am I misreading the spec/situation or is this a bug in
GeoServer's negotiating?
Cheers,
Jonathan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
Please make sure you read the following two resources before
posting to this list:
- Earning your support instead of buying it, but Ian Turton:
http://www.ianturton.com/talks/foss4g.html#/
<http://www.ianturton.com/talks/foss4g.html#/>
- The GeoServer user list posting guidelines:
http://geoserver.org/comm/userlist-guidelines.html
If you want to request a feature or an improvement, also see
this:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/Successfully-requesting-and-integrating-new-features-and-improvements-in-GeoServer
Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users>
--
Regards,
Andrea Aime
==GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.==Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolfTechnical LeadGeoSolutions S.A.S.Via di Montramito 3/A
<https://maps.google.com/?q=Via+di+Montramito+3/A+%0D%0A+55054+%C2%A0Massarosa&entry=gmail&source=g>55054
Massarosa
<https://maps.google.com/?q=Via+di+Montramito+3/A+%0D%0A+55054+%C2%A0Massarosa&entry=gmail&source=g>
(LU)phone: +39 0584 962313 <tel:+39%200584%20962313>fax: +39
0584 1660272 <tel:+39%200584%20166%200272>mob: +39 339 8844549
<tel:+39%20339%20884%204549>http://www.geo-solutions.ithttp://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
<http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it>
AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta
elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi
strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito
esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità
indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo
messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo
cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla
distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro
sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in
parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo
per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended
solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and
may be confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the
provisions of privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003,
no.196 - Italy's New Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord
with its purpose, any disclosure, reproduction, copying,
distribution, or either dissemination, either whole or partial,
is strictly forbidden except previous formal approval of the
named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact immediately the sender by telephone, fax or
e-mail and delete the information in this message that has been
received in error. The sender does not give any warranty or
accept liability as the content, accuracy or c ompleteness of
sent mes sages and accepts no responsibility for changes made
after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result
of e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
--
Regards,
Andrea Aime
==GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit
http://goo.gl/it488V for more information.==Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolfTechnical LeadGeoSolutions S.A.S.Via di Montramito 3/A55054
Massarosa (LU)phone: +39 0584 962313fax: +39 0584 1660272mob: +39
339 8844549http://www.geo-solutions.ithttp://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003
Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica
e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente
riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al
destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio
stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il
destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail
e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo
dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche
in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo
per f inalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai
principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003.
The information in this message and/or attachments, is intended
solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s) and may be
confidential or proprietary in nature or covered by the provisions of
privacy act (Legislative Decree June, 30 2003, no.196 - Italy's New
Data Protection Code).Any use not in accord with its purpose, any
disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or either
dissemination, either whole or partial, is strictly forbidden except
previous formal approval of the named addressee(s). If you are not
the inte nded recipient, please contact immediately the sender by
telephone, fax or e-mail and delete the information in this message
that has been received in error. The sender does not give any
warranty or accept liability as the content, accuracy or completeness
of sent messages and accepts no responsibility for changes made
after they were sent or for other risks which arise as a result of
e-mail transmission, viruses, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
Please make sure you read the following two resources before posting to this
list:
- Earning your support instead of buying it, but Ian Turton:
http://www.ianturton.com/talks/foss4g.html#/
- The GeoServer user list posting guidelines:
http://geoserver.org/comm/userlist-guidelines.html
If you want to request a feature or an improvement, also see this:
https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/Successfully-requesting-and-integrating-new-features-and-improvements-in-GeoServer
Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users
