[mapguide-internals] Re: RFC 113 - Support Path Scaling In Symbol Definition is ready for review

[Aleck Sun]

What do you mean? You can write xml comments using <!-- --> format in any resource and call SetResource  to set it. The comments are persisted.

Thanks,
Aleck

-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Zac Spitzer
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:51 PM
To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] Re: RFC 113 - Support Path Scaling In Symbol Definition is ready for review

is there anyway to enable/allow xml comments to be persisted in the file?

Symbols def's can be rather complex/tricky and not being able to annotate the xml with comments makes it even harder to manage.

is there a limitation in dbxml?

z


On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Aleck Sun <Aleck.Sun at autodesk.com> wrote:
>
> I have updated this RFC accordingly. The proposed milestone is now 2.4 and all the schema version is updated to 2.4.0.
> Is there any other comments?
>
> Thanks,
> Aleck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Bruce 
> Dechant
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:20 PM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: RE: [mapguide-internals] Re: RFC 113 - Support Path Scaling 
> In Symbol Definition is ready for review
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jackie Ng
> Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:55 PM
> To: mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: [mapguide-internals] Re: RFC 113 - Support Path Scaling In 
> Symbol Definition is ready for review
>
> Well let's use Maestro as an example.
>
> Maestro uses the [major].[minor] component of the Site version returned by the MapGuide as a way of determining what it is the set of resources (and their schema versions) is safe to work with.
>
> Introducing this for the 2.3 OS version (which I assume returns 2.3 as 
> the site version) and AIMS 2013 (which I assume will be > 2.3 in terms 
> of site
> version) throws a monkey wrench into client applications that use this kind of version checking logic.
>
> Not to mention that there is no solid time-frames currently for when 2.3 is going to be released, and without solid community funding for build infrastructure (still a major problem), we cannot expect OS releases to consistently be in sync with the commercial ones.
>
> Hence my concern about the milestone. Push the proposed milestone to 2.4 and this is not an issue.
>
> - Jackie
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://osgeo-org.1803224.n2.nabble.com/RFC-113-Support-Path-Scaling-In
> -Symbol-Definition-is-ready-for-review-tp6460741p6460820.html
> Sent from the MapGuide Internals mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>



--
Zac Spitzer
Solution Architect / Director
Ennoble Consultancy Australia
http://www.ennoble.com.au
http://zacster.blogspot.com
+61 405 847 168
_______________________________________________
mapguide-internals mailing list
mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals