Changes between Version 8 and Version 9 of MapGuideRfc158

Timestamp:

04/20/17 06:15:11 (8 years ago)

Author:

jng

Comment:

--

MapGuideRfc158

@@ -1 +1 @@
 
-= !MapGuide RFC 158 - Simplified JSON responses and GeoJSON support =
+= !MapGuide RFC 158 - Simplified JSON/class/schema responses and GeoJSON support =
 
 This page contains a change request (RFC) for the !MapGuide Open Source project.
@@ -39 +39 @@
 Current client applications that do happen to use the JSON responses provided by the mapagent will most likely be having to employ manual "de-arrayification" of the JSON content and lots of manual string to int/double/boolean parsing to be able to work with the current JSON responses. You can see this in Fusion where there is a lot of initialization work in de-arrayification/{{{parseInt}}}/{{{parseFloat}}} of the ApplicatonDefinition and RuntimeMap JSON responses.
 
+Another aspect of the mapagent where client applications are doing lots of unnecessary work is the responses for the {{{GETCLASSDEFINITION}}} and {{{DESCRIBESCHEMA}}} requests. The XML response for these requests are raw XML schema definitions returned by the underlying FDO APIs. The converted JSON form of this response is even more horrible to work with. MapGuide Maestro for example, has to employ manual XML parsing of these responses in order to make sense of the schemas/classes of a Feature Source, whereas with other mapagent operations it has the luxury of working with strongly-typed classes auto-generated from various XML schemas for the various responses.
+
 This is work that client applications do not, and should not have to do.
-
-Another aspect of the mapagent where client applications are doing lots of unnecessary work is the responses for the {{{GETCLASSDEFINITION}}} and {{{DESCRIBESCHEMA}}} requests. The XML response for these requests are raw XML schema definitions returned by the underlying FDO APIs. The converted JSON form of this response is even more horrible to work with. MapGuide Maestro for example, has to employ manual XML parsing of these responses in order to make sense of the schemas/classes of a Feature Source, whereas with other mapagent operations it has the luxury of working with strongly-typed classes auto-generated from various XML schemas for the various responses.
 
 == Proposed Solution ==