[fdo-internals] Proposal of FDO RFC56 & 57

[Haris Kurtagic]

Hi Greg,

I believe that fdo wms provider is mapping all wms layers to one fdo class.
Perhaps with allowing in api that user can set value or add arbitrary
parameters to wms request, then user of provider can override
parameter "layers" in generated request.

Those things are not important to me, just as suggestion...

Haris

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Greg Boone <greg.boone at autodesk.com> wrote:
> Hi Haris,
>
> There is a method on the API class named SetFeatureClassName, which maps to a feature class in the schema. The way the WMS provider works is that it internally maps WMS layer(s) to Feature classes in the FDO schema. Typically this is done on a 1:1 basis. If clients need to GetFeatureInfo for multiple classes (layers), then this method may need to be modified to accept a string collection of FDO class names.
>
> As for returning a feature reader instead of a string, that is tricky. WMS offers no standard on how the returned result will be formatted, i.e. there is no XSD describing a schema that defined the return value. It may even be plain text without any XML tagging.
>
> Greg
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Haris Kurtagic
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:19 AM
> To: FDO Internals Mail List
> Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] Proposal of FDO RFC56 & 57
>
> Hi Cheney,
>
> I support both RFC, still have a question:
> In FeatureInfo command there will be way of setting for which wms layers  ?
> I have two more thoughts  :
> - to allow any parameter to be added to wms request
> - i read in rfc about returning result, perhaps instead of returning plain xml to return featurereader and class with properties same as in the returned xml
>
> Haris
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Cheney Sun <cheney.sun at autodesk.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I proposed two FDO RFCs, RFC56 and RFC57. You can follow the links
>> below to see them.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc56
>>
>>
>>
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FDORfc57
>>
>>
>>
>> The relevant implementations are already in hand. Can you review them
>> and vote for the approval?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Cheney
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fdo-internals mailing list
>> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
> _______________________________________________
> fdo-internals mailing list
> fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals
>