[mapguide-internals] GETTILEIMAGE version 2.0.0 and RFC 11

[Tom Fukushima]

For things like this, please feel free to update the RFC.  Better to have them be correct and useful, than to reflect exactly what the PSC voted on.

I've updated the RFC and added and addendum section to the end which lists the change.  Re: Addendums...even though the pages have an automatic history maintained by the WIKI, the history might get wiped out if for example we move the WIKI site; so I would like to keep updates recorded directly on the page.

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 9:20 AM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] GETTILEIMAGE version 2.0.0 and RFC 11

Should I update the RFC to reflect the current state of things?

Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S



Walt Welton-Lair skrev:
> It was originally implemented as version "2.0.0", but then was later changed to "1.2.0".  See https://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/changeset/1216.  The RFC was never updated.  So "1.2.0" corresponds to the updated version.
>
> Walt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S
> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:55 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: [mapguide-internals] GETTILEIMAGE version 2.0.0 and RFC 11
>
> I'm investigating issue #860, which points to RFC 11.
> In RFC 11 it states that the GETTILEIMAGE should have version "2.0.0" to 
> take advantage of the non-MgMap based functionality.
> However, when I issue a request with version set to "2.0.0", I get an 
> "Invalid Operation Version" exception.
> When I look at the mapagent http test forms, it uses "1.2.0" as the 
> version number, and it use the MapDefinition based approach.
>
> The RFC states that this is included in 1.2.
> Is it just an issue with the RFC text itself, which should state "1.2.0" ?
>
>   
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals