Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of MapGuideRfc56


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Oct 6, 2008, 10:23:44 AM (14 years ago)
Author:
chrisclaydon
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • MapGuideRfc56

    v2 v3  
    3030The proposal is to add support for the following parameters to the GETDYNAMICMAPOVERLAYIMAGE HTTP request format:
    3131
    32 ||SETDISPLAYDPI||
    33 ||SETDISPLAYWIDTH||
    34 ||SETDISPLAYHEIGHT||
    35 ||SETVIEWSCALE||
    36 ||SETVIEWCENTERX||
    37 ||SETVIEWCENTERY||
    38 ||CLIENTAGENT||
    39 ||SHOWGROUPS||
    40 ||HIDEGROUPS||
    41 ||SHOWLAYERS||
    42 ||HIDELAYERS||
     32||SETDISPLAYDPI||Sets the display resolution in dots per inch||
     33||SETDISPLAYWIDTH||Sets the display width in pixels||
     34||SETDISPLAYHEIGHT||Sets the display height in pixels||
     35||SETVIEWSCALE||Sets the required view scale||
     36||SETVIEWCENTERX||Sets the view center point x coordinate in mapping coordinates||
     37||SETVIEWCENTERY||Sets the view center point y coordinate in mapping coordinates||
     38||SHOWGROUPS||Sets the list of groups to display||
     39||HIDEGROUPS||Sets the list of groups to hide||
     40||SHOWLAYERS||Sets the list of layers to display||
     41||HIDELAYERS||Sets the list of layers to hide||
    4342
    4443== Implications ==
    4544
    46 This section allows discussion of the repercussions of the change, such as whether there will be any breakage in backwards compatibility, if documentation will need to be updated, etc.
     45The code to parse and apply the view setting parameters already exists in the MG web tier. Implementing it for GETDYNAMICMAPOVERLAYIMAGE is therefore very straightforward. No changes are required in the MG server code to support the change.
    4746
    4847== Test Plan ==
    4948
    50 How the proposed change will be tested, if applicable.  New unit tests should be detailed here???
     49Web tier unit tests should be added to test the new parameters.
    5150
    5251== Funding/Resources ==
    5352
    54 This section will confirm that the proposed feature has enough support to proceed.  This would typically mean that the entity making the changes would put forward the RFC, but a non-developer could act as an RFC author if they are sure they have the funding to cover the change.
     53Autodesk to provide resources.