<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="&#1;" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:Wingdings;
        panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Tahoma;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
        {mso-style-priority:34;
        margin-top:0in;
        margin-right:0in;
        margin-bottom:0in;
        margin-left:.5in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
        {mso-list-id:1435322399;
        mso-list-type:hybrid;
        mso-list-template-ids:-63249118 518287886 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
        {mso-level-start-at:0;
        mso-level-number-format:bullet;
        mso-level-text:-;
        mso-level-tab-stop:none;
        mso-level-number-position:left;
        margin-left:22.5pt;
        text-indent:-.25in;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;}
ol
        {margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
        {margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Actually the clustering could be extended to multiple layers using the second part of your RFC. You’d just embed the clustering block/params<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>in a layer that references other layers (however that would work). That’s kinda why I thought the RFCs should be separate.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The feature count parameter would be a challenge regardless of implementation.  I need to think about this a bit. I was thinking that if a layer <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>is to be clustered then:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>msLayerGetItems() would tag on a this new item in addition to whatever the layer defines<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> the clustering operation would populate it<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Being able to extend a layers default item set and then populating it at the shape level is a need we have not only in this case. The 3D buildings<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>idea thrown out on mapserver-users also would use this. We should consider an general approach to that topic.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Again, let me think just a touch on this and reply back. Ideally we should only have to override the vtable function for msLayerNextShape(). I’m<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>thinking:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>msLayerOpen() is unchanged<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>msLayerGetItems() is smart enough to add the new item for feature count<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>msClusterLayer() is a new function, it uses the stock msLayerNextShape() function to read shapes and build clusters, the feature count is maintained here.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>msLayerNextShape() is overridden to access the cluster cache<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoListParagraph style='margin-left:22.5pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><![if !supportLists]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>-<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><![endif]><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>msLayerWhichShapes() is unchanged<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This would then require almost no change to existing code… You could use the inline feature list already present in a layerObj to store the clustered<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Shapes. Of course then you couldn’t cluster inline shapes but perhaps that’s not a big deal (wouldn’t think it would be).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>For querying, hmmm… Let me think on that too…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Steve<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Tamas Szekeres [mailto:szekerest@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 16, 2011 6:27 AM<br><b>To:</b> Lime, Steve D (DNR)<br><b>Cc:</b> mapserver-dev@lists.osgeo.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [mapserver-dev] MS RFC 68: Support for combining features from multiple layers (Call for discussion)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Steve,<br><br>As far as I can see, your preference is to implement the clustering within the same layer instead of referring to another layer, right?<br>(With regards to the parameters there's not too much difference in the concept with having processing options vs. built in parameters.)<br><br>With this end in view, I foresee 2 main problems which is not quite trivial in this approach.<br><br>1. How the FeatureCount parameter will be used for labelling the clustered features?<br>2. How can we make the clustered features selectable (queryable). / this is not a strong requirement of mine at this phase /<br><br><br>With regards to the implementation how about invoking a custom LayerOpen in msDrawVectorLayer, something like?:<br><br>if (needtocluster)&nbsp;&nbsp; // based of the existence of the cluster parameters<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; msClusterLayerOpen(layer);&nbsp; // this would override the vtable methods: LayerGetItems/LayerInitIteminfo/LayerWhichShapes/LayerNextShape<br>else<br>&nbsp;&nbsp; mslayerOpen(layer);<br><br>// the remaining code would be the same in effect (not modified)<br><br>msLayerWhichItems(layer);&nbsp; // LayerGetItems/LayerInitIteminfo would be aware of the FeatureCount parameter.<br>msLayerWhichShapes(layer, rect)&nbsp; // build up the cluster database here, call WhichItems/LayerWhichShapes/LayerNextShape for the underlying connection type<br>while(msLayerNextShape(layer, shape) == MS_SUCCESS)&nbsp;&nbsp; // shapes would be served from the cluster database<br>{<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; msDrawShape(shape);&nbsp; // normal drawing process <br>}<br>msLayerClose(layer); // restore the original vtable<br><br><br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Tamas<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>2011/2/15 Lime, Steve D (DNR) &lt;<a href="mailto:Steve.Lime@state.mn.us" target="_blank">Steve.Lime@state.mn.us</a>&gt;<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Sorry, I mean clustering shouldn’t be a new connection type, rather a block or optionally a set of processing directives, so:</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>LAYER</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp; &nbsp;NAME mypoints</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;&nbsp; TYPE POINT</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;&nbsp; # whatever data and/or connection params</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp; CLUSTERS # or processing directives</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp; END</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;&nbsp;# class and style info</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>END</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>The decision to use a block or processing directives would depend on the complexity of configuration. If clustering could</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>potentially support lots of tuning then I’d favor an explicit configuration block.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I think both pieces of functionality outlined are potentially useful. I’d recommend limiting the scope of the RFC to clustering </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>to start with… There is some limited (and non-configurable) support for not labeling over point features already present in</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>the label cache code so I see more limited utility in the layer combination portion of the RFC.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>Steve</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt'> <a href="mailto:mapserver-dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">mapserver-dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:mapserver-dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">mapserver-dev-bounces@lists.osgeo.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tamas Szekeres<br><b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:38 AM<br><b>To:</b> Lime, Steve D (DNR)<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:mapserver-dev@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">mapserver-dev@lists.osgeo.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [mapserver-dev] MS RFC 68: Support for combining features from multiple layers (Call for discussion)</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>2011/2/15 Lime, Steve D (DNR) &lt;<a href="mailto:Steve.Lime@state.mn.us" target="_blank">Steve.Lime@state.mn.us</a>&gt;<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>I see value in both but kinda think they should be handled with separate RFCs since you don’t need one for the</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>other and neither problem is trivial.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>Steve,<br><br>I can accept to create separate RFCs (however I require them both in my project to succeed ;-)<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid windowtext 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt;border-color:-moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color rgb(204, 204, 204)'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>At least on the clustering side I don’t think that should be handled as a connection type. Rather I’d favor a new</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>CLUSTER block where you’d set the various tolerance and scale values. That way you could add clustering to a</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>point layer without much effort. I think it needs to be that simple.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;color:#1F497D'>&nbsp;</span><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>I don't see the difference with regards to the data processing. For the setting of the parameters via a CLUSTER block instead of some PROCESSING option doesn't seem to differ significantly. But if you want to include this algorithm somewhere into the MapServer core that would be another case.<br><br>Best regards,<br><br>Tamas<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p></div></body></html>