feedback on possible mapserver enhancements
Tom.Kralidis at EC.GC.CA
Mon Feb 4 13:07:29 EST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UMN MapServer Developers List
> [mailto:MAPSERVER-DEV at LISTS.UMN.EDU] On Behalf Of Howard Butler
> Sent: 04 February, 2008 12:49 PM
> To: MAPSERVER-DEV at LISTS.UMN.EDU
> Subject: Re: [MAPSERVER-DEV] feedback on possible mapserver
> On Feb 4, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> > thomas bonfort wrote:
> >>>> And last but not least :
> >>>> * what would you think of having a wfs-t implementation for
> >>>> mapserver, probably at first limited to postgis
> backends, and based
> >>>> on the tinyows project?
> >>> A year ago I would have said no, but several times in
> recent months
> >>> I've had questions from folks that seem to use WFS-T as a
> means of
> >>> selecting their web rendering tool. It's becoming a
> >>> feature. I'm not familiar with TinyOWS though. Are you suggesting
> >>> assimilating TinyOWS?
> >> the advantage of this would be to avoid having to deploy another
> >> server along side mapserver in order to treat the wfs-t side of an
> >> application,as you pointed out. in finality it would mean
> porting of
> >> the tinyows code into mapserver.
> > There is so much demand for WFS-T by our users that I am
> slowly giving
> > up and starting to think that we may have to do WFS-T in the end.
> > Please don't tell anyone that I wrote that. ;) ;)
> > I am not sure about integrating TinyOWS code... I have
> never looked at
> > TinyOWS, but wouldn't a simple merge be messy? How would
> that fit with
> > existing mapwfs.c code? Could we not just extend the current
> > implementation (and make the necessary architecture changes) to
> > support transactions?
> MapServer is not a GIS! MapServer is not a GIS! I am not
> supportive at all of implementing WFS-T in MapServer. What
> benefit is there to be gained by doing so that can't be
> accomplished by setting up a GeoServer instance alongside
> MapServer? IMO, it is the best-of-breed open source WFS-T
> that's out there, with tons of momentum and development force
> behind it -- why go to the trouble to re-implement it in MapServer?
> Technically, one challenge I see for MapServer implementing WFS-T is
> that MapServer apps generally expect to be transient and stateless.
> MapServer does not do well in long running processes (any
> MapScripter who's tried can give you gobs of complaints about
> this), and it has no concept of transactional operations
> which I think would be very challenging to bolt on in any
> smooth sort of way.
> IMO, MapServer should continue to improve upon what it is
> good at, and WFS-T is not something that I think it would be
> good at without a lot of re-engineering (we hate churn,
> remember?). With some effort, we could have something
> workable and maybe even functional, but it will get nowhere
> close to what GeoServer has.
Wouldn't it be great if MapServer and GeoServer worked off similar
More information about the mapserver-dev