I'm connecting to a WMTS service using a viewer we're building on top of Cesium. The client probably isn't important, except to say that it already supports both WMTS request modes (KVP or RESTful).

Between these two request encodings, why should I choose one over the other? For example, maybe one offers a performance advantage, or better compatibility if we were to later install a tile caching server.

  • 1
    I think my question should have a specific, concrete answer. For example, maybe "generally, RESTful encoding works better with caching servers" or even "it's unlikely to make any difference and is purely a matter of personal choice". I haven't been able to find any analysis of the situation or background on why there are multiple supported request encodings, so I was hesitant to just pick one and go with it. – Coderer Dec 5 '18 at 8:50
  • Wmts kvp requests though are stateless and cache able. – nmtoken Dec 5 '18 at 9:34

All OGC interface standards (WMS/WFS/WCS/WPS/SOS/WMTS) operations are stateless and cacheable irrespective of their encoding. So there is no gain or comparison to be made here.

It is moot whether the so called WMTS RESTful encoding is indeed RESTful, as a client seems to require out of band information, i.e. information other than that provided in the hypermedia, which is an anti-REST pattern. So really your choice of encoding is purely personal choice.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.