MapServer Toronto Code Sprint 2009



Minutes, Actions, Decisions

1. XML mapfiles

  • A draft RFC is at
  • There are concerns about the use of the CWXML library and the benefits of a binary encoded format
  • The need we are trying to address is the ability to build MapFile? Editors that would be facilitated by the existence of a XML mapfile format (since the current mapfile format makes it impossible to write a forward-compatible parser)
  • There are concerns about having to support another set of parsing functions. Just keeping the existing mapfile.x read/write functions in sync is already a challenge, so adding another set of reader/writer functions for XML will just make this worse.
  • Conclusion: After discussion, it was decided that for the time being we should develop a XML schema and a XSLT to convert from XML to text mapfile. If the new XML format takes off then we may consider implementing support for it directly in MapServer in a future release.

2. Graphical rendering

  • Discussion of the approach of rendering plugins
  • Conclusions???

3. Attribute type handling (for WFS)

  • Ticket:
  • An itemObj structure has already been added to mapprimitive.h. We agree that this is the way to go, the C code should be updated to use itemObj instead of the array of itemnames, etc.
  • A RFC would be required for this.

4. Metadata and processing directives abuse

  • What can we do about this?
  • Conclusion: at least moving the OWS-related metadata to a separate OWS/END block (hashtable) would help.
  • We'll need to maintain backwards compatibility for existing mapfiles that have their ows_* metadata in the METADATA/END block. The way it would be handled is that if a OWS/END block is present that it takes priority and all lookups happen in that hashtable only, otherwise we fallback on the metadata hashtable for all lookups.
  • A RFC will be required for this.

5. Mechanism to enable/hide/ignore layers in OGC Web Services

  • See the use cases page at HidingLayersInOGCWebServices
  • One suggestion was to use a set of OWS + SERVICE blocks in the layer definition, e.g.
             TYPE WMS
             REQUESTS ALL # ALL, ONE, or specific request to accept for this layer
             "key1" "value1"
             "key2" "value2"
             TYPE WFS
             REQUESTS ...

Breakout Sections

Last modified 8 years ago Last modified on Mar 10, 2009 11:02:14 AM