Feature #629

Compatibility with geonetwork 3.0.x

Added by Portier Thomas about 5 years ago. Updated almost 2 years ago.

Status:Request For CommentsStart date:08/22/2013
Priority:NormalDue date:
Assignee:Technical Committee% Done:

0%

Category:CATALOG
Target version:-
Sponsor: Ergonomic impact:

none

Functional impact:

-


Description

Geonetwork 3.x has changed its authentication method and added a dedicated service for transactions : geonetwork/srv/eng/csw-publication

EasySDI has evolve to be compatible with this new version.

History

#1 Updated by Mérour Xavier about 5 years ago

Hello,

Does it mean that previous versions of GN will not work with EasySDI V4 ?

Thanks,

Xavier

#2 Updated by Portier Thomas about 5 years ago

I would like to say "EasySDI has TO evolve to be compatible with this new version"
The first version of easysdi V4 will be compatible with geonetwork 2.6.

I dont't know the effort to make the V4 compatible with 2.10 AND 2.6.

#3 Updated by Mérour Xavier about 5 years ago

OK, I got it ;-)

Thanks

#4 Updated by Mérour Xavier about 5 years ago

According to what we have seen, there are two different aspect of this issue :

1. Geonetwork now implement a new authentication method
2. Geonetwork has splitted its CSW into two different : one for "read-only access" and one for "publication/transaction".

In conclusion, to work with this last version, EasySDI has to evolve on those two aspects.

#5 Updated by Magoni Bruno almost 5 years ago

In the meantime, easySDI should change the current authenticating's way and switch it from the PROXY servlet to the CATALOG php side.
It will remove the absolute need of deploying a JAVA servlet to use easySDI.

A question is also about keeping previous authentication method for geonetwrok versions equals or lesser than 2.6.4

#6 Updated by Mérour Xavier almost 5 years ago

Question :

The dual access to CSW (one for "read-only access" and one for "publication/transaction") in Geonetwork is still unmanaged by EasySDI, is it right ? or adaptations were made to support these new characteristics ?

Thanks

Xavier

#7 Updated by Mérour Xavier over 4 years ago

Does anyone has any input of this issue (GN 2.10 compatibiliyt and authentication methods) ? Was there any work done so far ? or still an issue to dig ?

Thanks

#8 Updated by Magoni Bruno over 4 years ago

  • Target version deleted (Unplanned)

#9 Updated by Portier Thomas over 4 years ago

Geonetwork 2.6.4 doesn't support harvesting HTTPS csw. An other agrument to make EasySDI compliant with a most recent version of Geonetwork.

#10 Updated by Mérour Xavier about 4 years ago

  • Assignee set to Portier Thomas

In its last meeting, the PSC decided to wait for geonetwork version 3.0 tp make adaptation in easySDI (since 3.0 will be the next major GN release https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/wiki/Roadmap-GeoNetwork-3.0).

Making intermediate effort with lower versions would certainly be lost with the upcoming version.

#11 Updated by Portier Thomas about 4 years ago

Do we have a date of this 3.0 release? Isn't it risky to rely on the first version of a major release (3.0)?
The 2.10 has been tested for more than 1 year.

An other bug found on the 2.6.4 : [[http://sourceforge.net/p/geonetwork/mailman/message/27609028/]]
You have to install the 2.6.3 if you want the search to be fully functional.

#12 Updated by Magoni Bruno about 4 years ago

Hi Thomas,

May be you're right not to wait too much on effective 3.0 stable version!
Do you have time to spent about deploying geonetwork 2.10 and make analysis of what should be changed inside easysdi to be compliant with ?

Thanks,
Bruno

#13 Updated by Magoni Bruno over 3 years ago

  • Subject changed from Compatibility with geonetwork 2.10 to Compatibility with geonetwork 2.10.x / 3.0.x
  • Status changed from New to Request For Comments
  • Assignee changed from Portier Thomas to Technical Committee

Regarding Geonetwork roadmap https://github.com/geonetwork/core-geonetwork/releases, I propose that TC discuss about how embracing migration under 2.10.x OR/AND 3.0.x

#14 Updated by Villemagne Jérôme over 3 years ago

  • Priority changed from Normal to Low

After TC's discussion, it seems that there is more cost than benefit migrating to geonetwork 3.0 ; TC agree that this discussion should stay opened but waiting for more plus.

#15 Updated by Van Hoecke Hélène over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Request For Comments to Request For Votes
  • Assignee changed from Technical Committee to Steering Committee
  • Functional impact set to -
  • Ergonomic impact set to none

With the fixed bugs proposed by the v3 (specifically on harvesting), the migration should be now put on the schedule.

#16 Updated by Mérour Xavier over 3 years ago

  • Assignee changed from Steering Committee to Technical Committee

PSC decides not to put any effort on Geonetwork 3.0 BUT, instead, have in mind the developpment of an "easySDI inernal CSW engine" which will be "lighter" and "easyier" to deploy than GN.

Next step : organize a tech workshop on the question to draw the architecture of this engine. Each partner will think about it internally to come with inputs for the workshop.
Target : beginning of october 2015

#17 Updated by Van Hoecke Hélène about 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Request For Votes to Request For Comments
  • Priority changed from Low to Urgent

#18 Updated by Van Hoecke Hélène about 3 years ago

Thomas has performed some tests on GN3 and easySDI 4.
It appears that easySDI 4 is, without any adaptation to make, compatible with GN3.

No effort has to be put in this direction.

What should we do about the idea of an internal CSW engine?

#19 Updated by Van Hoecke Hélène about 3 years ago

Informations given during TC meeting :

  • Version negociation is not possible from easySDI service configuration because GN3 only support GetCapabilities in POST. This must be a GN3 bug, because CSW specifications required GetCapabilities in HTTP GET. Work around is : use a preexisting physical service, change the url and authentication informations, but don't perform negociation on it.
  • GN3 uses HTTP Basic authentication, we do not need to use anymore the specific provider authentication mecanism
  • Conclusion is : some few days are required to adapt easySDI to the new GN3 specificities, but it can be use as it is.
Concerning the oncoming workshop, with this GN3 compatibility news, the developpment of an internal CSW engine seems to be no more a hot topic.
TC members have proposed following topics to be discussed :
  1. CSW search enhancements :
    • Faceted search
    • search autocompletion
    • multi-criteria search
    • ...
  1. Extraction features (ASIT-VD)
  1. Roadmap easySDI:
    • Monitor + services?
    • ...

#20 Updated by Van Hoecke Hélène about 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Request For Comments to Request For Votes
  • Assignee changed from Technical Committee to Steering Committee

#21 Updated by Magoni Bruno over 2 years ago

  • Status changed from Request For Votes to Request For Comments
  • Assignee changed from Steering Committee to Technical Committee

Such issue will be reassigned to SC when further technical info will be available about Geonetwork V3 compliance...

#22 Updated by Blatti Yves over 2 years ago

  • Priority changed from Urgent to Normal

#23 Updated by Blatti Yves almost 2 years ago

  • Subject changed from Compatibility with geonetwork 2.10.x / 3.0.x to Compatibility with geonetwork 3.0.x

#24 Updated by Blatti Yves almost 2 years ago

  • Description updated (diff)

Also available in: Atom PDF