MapServer Toronto Code Sprint 2009
Minutes, Actions, Decisions
1. XML mapfiles
- A draft RFC is at http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-51.html
- 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
3. Attribute type handling (for WFS)
- Ticket: http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/462
- 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.
LAYER ... OWS SERVICE TYPE WMS REQUESTS ALL # ALL, ONE, or specific request to accept for this layer "key1" "value1" "key2" "value2" END SERVICE TYPE WFS REQUESTS ... ... END END END
Note: See TracWiki for help on using the wiki.