[Qgis-developer] Report 10 - QGIS Resources Sharing Tools

[Alessandro Pasotti]

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 10:17 AM, Akbar Gumbira <akbargumbira at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ale
>
>
>> Thanks for your report Akbar!
>>
>
>
>> I'm sorry if you've not taken into account my repeated calls to keep
>> authentication and proxy support in the primary goals. As I explained you
>> this is very important for some companies and organizations that needs
>> authenticated endpoints in their networks.
>>
>
>
>> If this plugin will not use this feature, the a.m. organization will not
>> be able to use it (and they will not invest any time or resources in its
>> maintainance or future development), they will just build their own sharing
>> solution.
>>
>
>
>> For this reason I've been pushing since the very beginning to use
>> QgsNetworkAccessManager for all network calls, in order to be able to use
>> QGIS proxy settings and authentication plugins.
>
>
> Agreed. In the network class, I used QgsNetworkAccessManager. The tricky
> part is the Dulwich's porcelain used to interact with git repositories. For
> this, I think we need to do it manually through git configuration to use
> proxy.
>


In this case we will loose authentication, but I guess it's not a great
issue: I don't think that git will be the preferred sharing protocol in
case of authenticated repos.



>
> The algorithm could be:
>> # Browsing:
>> - for each the repo url:
>>    - if it does not point to a metadata.ini file
>>       - get the metadata address from the URL
>>    - if we have an handler to retrieve the metadata.ini
>>       - retrieve the metadata.ini
>>    - else
>>       - error
>> #Installing
>> - if the metadata does not contain a download URL for the collection
>>     - build the collection download URL from the repo URL and protocol
>> and collection name
>> - if we have an handler to retrieve the collection
>>     - download and install
>> - else
>>     - error
>
>
> I was thinking to separate between Metadata Handler and Repository Handler
> as they don't have any correlation. For example, the metadata could be in
> an ftp and the repository could be in git. Doing if else (treating the only
> one git case: that the repository URL is a git repository and building a
> metadata URL from that URL is not that worth it). So when users add a
> repository, they add the metadata url. What do you think?
>
>

It looks good to me, browsing metadata and installing a collection are two
separate steps (in time and scope) and it's worth splitting the URLs into
different protocol, if needed.

Of course, for most repos, the handler and protocol will just be the same
for both operations.

In general, I feels that this is a better approach also in the sense that
"explicit is better than implicit", we provide explicit URIs instead of
delegate guessing them to the software layer.

Cheers

-- 
Alessandro Pasotti
w3:   www.itopen.it
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-developer/attachments/20160801/cec3033f/attachment.html>