Tom- Yes I would like to look at the implementation. But that just makes my point. If I cannot extract the core ideas from the spec, then it has failed as a spec. =Dennis Tom Kunicki wrote:
I'll concede some that some portions of the specification are verbose. Most of the verbosity deals with allowing processing end-points to provide machine readable descriptions of processing end-point capabilities as well as descriptions of the algorithms. The specification goes well beyond simple algorithm execution. I'd rather auto-generate UIs for process execution and subsequent calls than spend hours reading a wiki or other documentation. Implementation of algorithms along with client execution is pretty light weight. There are a number of frameworks implementing the portions of the specification that aren't of interest to algorithm developers. The framework we are using allows us to decorate a java class with annotations to wrap an algorithm for publication. All the XML documentation required by the specification is then auto-generated from those annotations along with automatic unmarshalling/marshalling of input/outputs. My motivation? We're integrators pulling in data from disparate sources using disparate standards. I don't look forward to having to facilitate integration of one-offs when there are usable standards. If you want to look at an actual implementation of WPS as opposed to the specification i'll be happy to oblige. Tom Kunicki Center for Integrated Data Analytics U.S. Geological Survey 8505 Research Way Middleton, WI 53562 On Jul 3, 2012, at 4:23 PM, Dennis Heimbigner wrote:having taken a quick look at the WPS spec, I think my main objection to it is its verbosity. I realize that part of that comes from using XML. However, a spec that takes 30+ tables to describe the format is, in my opinion, way out of control. I strongly prefer concise, even terse, and at least semi-formal descriptions. A specific request: does anyone have a RELAX-NG grammar for the WPS spec, or any sort of grammar at all? =Dennis Heimbigner Unidata Roy Mendelssohn wrote:Thanks for this (and Rich's follow-up). This is very interesting. And it can be used as service, correct, not just from a web page? Is it possible to see some (or all) of the WPS code? I know Eoin's group at ASA is working on using WPS in an implementation perhaps we can get them to chime in. I can't promise any help at the moment (but am very interested)- we are already stretched way beyond our capabilities and are sort of going through an "institutional existential crisis" as it were, but in this case it is real rather than psychological. BTW - I look at services based on how well they work and how easy they are to use (from the client side) not what adjectives are attached to them (REST, OGC, etc etc). That is why I have always and keep pushing for working code, not paper. A lot of things that look good on paper are dogs in practice. -Roy On Jul 1, 2012, at 10:55 PM, Tom Kunicki wrote:On (C) I definitely concur. I am not against simplicity and HTTP GET requests. I just want to make sure that the approach is discussed and that one doesn't fall into the trap of believing HTTP GET is a panacea of simplicity. These URLs that have been posted are pretty complex and aren't the kinds of things that anyone but expert users will be crafting by hand. There will be a client implementation in front of them and they will need to be updated if the server processing API behind them changes. In this case, the client implementation will have to change in tandem with the server side processing API. This will be true regardless of whether the request is GET, POST, PUT, etc. One benefit of GET is an embeddable link, to my knowledge this isn't easily done with POST or PUT. Our group uses WPS. We had issues with some holes with some implementation and the specification so we made a choice to join on to the WPS 2.0 SWG.There are advantages to the WPS specification. Implementations can list a set of supported operations and processes using the GetCapabilities request (a GET or POST, we use GET). Each process can be queried for it's API including supported inputs and outputs (name, mime-type and schema if xml) using a DescribeProcess request (GET or POST, we use GET). If you know the arguments and types you can parse the DescribeProcess response and automatically generate a UI. We have implemented this in JavaScript for our Web-based brokering services. There are python clients as well as an Arc plugin in-progress (completed?) by ERSI and 52n, also a qGIS plugin among others. Processes can be executed with an Execute request (a GET or POST request, we use POST). POST for us because we deal with some pretty complex inputs (WFS calls with server side geometry filtering by reference to a GET or POST request; or Base64 encoded shapefiles sent in-line). These would bump us into some U
RL
length restrictions we have dealt with in the past. We don't have to use these complex inputs but since WPS offers this flexibility we are happy to leverage it. When we execute processes we have the options to execute them synchronously or asynchronously (and an implementation can control these options by advertising them per process.) We can query the executing process for it's completion state (POST, don't know if GET is possible as I haven't looked into it). We can request executions results in-line with the response or by reference. We provide inputs to WPS calls as the results of other WPS calls. WPS processing implementations can be complex or simple. Given our use cases we made an architectural decision to leverage some of the more advanced components of the specification. We've developed some complex processing that does some cool and useful things that we are able to leverage in other projects and share with other groups. With our processing endpoints we
ca
nadd a process and have it automatically be displayed in our UIs. One of the benefits of WPS was processing end-points became self-documenting. Now, the WPS execute by GET is pretty tricky as it requires so double URL encoding. We are happy using POST and didn't delve too much into GET. If there was a need and someone wanted to look at this with me (ahem, Roy?) I would be more that happy to submit some change requests to simplify the specification for some use cases. In my experience with the OGC standards almost everything can be done with GET, it's when you get into the outlying use cases you have to represent your requests with POST. WPS is an OGC specification. I think the last 2 words of the previous sentence instantly turn people off. But there's some real value to the work that's been done. We've used it as a thin wrapper on process execution. Our initial cut at processing involved using simple GET-based services. We found we had to generate a whole suite of utility/supporting GET-based services relying on clients to perform operations with correct ordering. The architecture was becoming difficult to maintain and document. A large number of tasks have now been implemented with the OGC standards suite and available standards implementations. This has saved our group a lot of development time and in turn taxpayer dollars. Tom Kunicki Center for Integrated Data Analytics U.S. Geological Survey 8505 Research WayMiddleton, WI 53562On Jul 1, 2012, at 11:34 PM, Gerry Creager wrote:Roy, That's a good explanation, and one I can live with. However, I also agree with Jeff's later comments, that A) in general, the same interpreter can handle GET and POST, and B) file uploads can't happen with a GET. And, most important: C) KISS is a good mantra. I'll sit back and listen to the debate again. gerry On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Roy Mendelssohn <roy.mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx> wrote: BTW - a discussion we have been having around these parts is can you do enough in the way of server-side functions without a POST (ie the URL defines the function). That is why I would like to hear more from people who are running F-TDS and GDS - how many requests do they get for server side functions, but is the usual response time and download for these request, how large are the usual expressions? And then contrast it with a WPS or WCPS approach. I clearly believe in one approach, but I would welcome people who are using some of these other approaches to describe what they have done, the benefits of doing things that way, and what it means for a client. Thanks, -Roy On Jul 1, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Dennis Heimbigner wrote:Roy-... One comment. I think you misunderstood my point about Matlab and R. I am not interested in Matlab specific implementations. The point was because the URL completely defines the request, I can implement scripts in any application that can send an URL and receive a file in terms of functions built-in to that application - that is my clients do not break as the application or operating system change.Not quite sure I understand. This phrase "...receive a file in terms of functions built-in to that application" sounds like you are creating an association between functions defined on the client side and functions defined on the server side. Can you elaborate?Why I strongly prefer, if it is at all reasonable, services that only use GET, not POST.Again, that is only possible if you keep your requests short enough to not violate the URL length restrictions. =Dennis Heimbigner Unidata Roy Mendelssohn wrote:Hi Dennis: Thanks. One comment. I think you misunderstood my point about Matlab and R. I am not interested in Matlab specific implementations. The point was because the URL completely defines the request, I can implement scripts in any application that can send an URL and receive a file in terms of functions built-in to that application - that is my clients do not break as the application or operating system change. While I understand why this occurred, a few years ago we had straight OPeNDAP implementations. We had a lot of users using scripts we developed for Matlab, running under Windows. Due to updates in both Windows and Matlab, the OPeNDAP files for Windows stopped working (at least for Matlab). We had a lot of users that were left stranded and stranded for quite a long time. Developing and maintaining clients, particularly clients that are working within an application for which you have to write code, very quickly becomes a non-trivial exercise. Since we switched to a service where the URL completely defines the request, our Matlab and R scripts have survived quite nicely any number of updates both to the applications themselves and to the operating systems. That is because the clients now only use functions built into the applications. Why I strongly prefer, if it is at all reasonable, services that only use GET, not POST. -Roy On Jun 28, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Dennis Heimbigner wrote:I am old and slow, but suppose I am in OpeNDAP, are you proposing to separate say constraint expressions and server-side function requests basically the same (ie I just scan what is after each comma) or do you propose some method that signifies in the URL that what follows is an expression? In F-TDS and GDS the form of the URL is:First, I am proposing to subsume DAP constraints. Second, I am proposing, like DAP, to put the expressions in the query part of the URL (i.e. after the '?').http://machine:port/thredds/dodsC/dataset_expr_{dataset2,dataset3,...}{expression1;expression2;...}.URLsuffix?constraintSo, I would rewrite this as something more-or-less like this: http://machine.../dataset?expression1,expression2,... Where the expressions would include the references to dataset2, dataset3, and the constraint.BTW, the reason I have asked about the experience of people who are using F-TDS and GDS on whether synchronous requests can cover the large majority of cases, is because I am very partial to systems where the URL completely defines the request, and hence essentially use GET as the verb.The synchronous/asynchronous issue is, for me, a separable issue. I should note that GET has a limit on the size of URLS, so there needs to be ways to deal with that. Two possibilities are 1) use POST or PUT, or 2) provide a way to upload a long expression in parts USING multiple GETs.The reason for this is long experience. where client code has broken with changes in operating system and/or application, fixes were slow in coming, so many users were left with nothing working. In a system where the URL completely defined the request, say ERDDAP, in Matlab:link='http://coastwatch.pfeg.noaa.gov/erddap/griddap/erdBAsstamday.mat?sst[(2010-01-16T12:00:00Z):1:(2010-01-16T12:00:00Z)][(0.0):1:(0.0)][(30):1:(50.0)][(220):1:(240.0)]'; F=urlwrite(link,'cwatch.mat');Will get the related file, and the entire command is in Matlab, no extra code required. The same in R is:download.file(url="http://coastwatch.pfeg.noaa.gov/erddap/griddap/erdBAsstamday.nc?sst[(2010-01-16T12:00:00Z):1:(2010-01-16T12:00:00Z)][(0.0):1:(0.0)][(30):1:(50.0)][(220):1:(240.0)]", destfile="AGssta.nc",mode='wb')again, "download.file" is an R command.I think that we do not want to be R/MATLAB specific in a proposal to put stuff in URLs. I would rather propose to allow uploading of R/MATLAB scripts to serve as additional, user-defined functions. I would prefer tomaintain this simplicity and cover 80% of the cases if possible, than cover the rest but where more complex, application specific code would have to be developed and maintained.Agreed. However my assumption is the the output of any function that is not assigned to a single-assignment variable will be returned as part of the response; but other ways of specifying this are possible within the functional framework I am proposing. =Dennis Heimbigner Unidata********************** "The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or NOAA." ********************** Roy Mendelssohn Supervisory Operations Research Analyst NOAA/NMFS Environmental Research Division Southwest Fisheries Science Center 1352 Lighthouse Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097 e-mail: Roy.Mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx (Note new e-mail address) voice: (831)-648-9029 fax: (831)-648-8440 www: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/ "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." "From those who have been given much, much will be expected" "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" -MLK Jr.********************** "The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or NOAA." ********************** Roy Mendelssohn Supervisory Operations Research Analyst NOAA/NMFS Environmental Research Division Southwest Fisheries Science Center 1352 Lighthouse Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097 e-mail: Roy.Mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx (Note new e-mail address) voice: (831)-648-9029 fax: (831)-648-8440 www: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/ "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." "From those who have been given much, much will be expected" "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" -MLK Jr. _______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/ _______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/_______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/********************** "The contents of this message do not reflect any position of the U.S. Government or NOAA." ********************** Roy Mendelssohn Supervisory Operations Research Analyst NOAA/NMFS Environmental Research Division Southwest Fisheries Science Center 1352 Lighthouse Avenue Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2097 e-mail: Roy.Mendelssohn@xxxxxxxx (Note new e-mail address) voice: (831)-648-9029 fax: (831)-648-8440 www: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/ "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." "From those who have been given much, much will be expected" "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" -MLK Jr. _______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/_______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/_______________________________________________ thredds mailing list thredds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxFor list information or to unsubscribe, visit: http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/mailing_lists/
thredds archives: