4.6.0 final today

[Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]]

Hi,

I helped Steve test the GML3L0 support.  A bit of into to the output
content model changes.

As far as our testing went, we found the output XML to be both
well-formed and valid with GML3.1.0.  The difference with the GML
changes is that the WFS GetFeature output does NOT use the default
wfs:FeatureCollection container from the WFS 1.0.0 schemas, but a
MapServer defined msFeatureCollection in the schema ref'd by the
DescribeFeatureType in the second value of
msFeatureCollection/@xsi:schemaLocation.  Note that this works for
GML3L0 AND does not break the WFS spec.  The OGC WFS spec editor
confirmed this as we passed this approach by him.

We went with this approach because the requirement was to output GML3L0
in a WFS context.  WFS 1.0.0 schemas explicitly cite and use GML2.  WFS
1.1.0 schemas explicitly cite and use GML3.  We weren't in the position
to upgrade to WFS 1.1.0 for this release.  So this works for everyone,
and keeps us in the rules.

So my vote is to go ahead and release.  Good job everyone!

..Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Morissette [mailto:dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 June, 2005 13:30
> To: Paul Ramsey
> Cc: Kralidis,Tom [Burlington]; Bart van den Eijnden; Assefa 
> Yewondwossen; mapserver-dev
> Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] 4.6.0 final today
> 
> 
> Paul Ramsey wrote:
> > Gah. :) When it comes to standards, releasing broken things 
> is really
> > catastrophic to the ecology of technology. (Speaking as 
> someone who has 
> > a client.) It makes things look randomly broken, even when 
> the client 
> > software is good. I am in a huge MUM rush, it is going to 
> be hard to 
> > make time to DL mapbrowser and try this out, but will try. 
> 
> We've been walking towards this release for almost two months 
> now, it's 
> a bit late to bring this up now at a few hours from the final 
> release. 
> Are there bugs documenting those issues?
> 
> 
> > If there *is*
> > a problem, I would suggest that delay is better than broken 
> standards 
> > support.
> > 
> 
> I guess I'd submit this to a vote of the other developers (I 
> have CC'd 
> mapserver-dev to get other developer's opinions). My personal 
> vote goes 
> to NOT delaying the release and including the fix in 4.6.1 (assuming 
> there is an issue).
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> > Daniel Morissette wrote:
> > 
> >> Paul Ramsey wrote:
> >>
> >>> Daniel,
> >>> Has the 4.6 WFS support been tested with a WFS client 
> like Cadcorp 
> >>> SIS or something else with reasonable GML support? We 
> have thus far 
> >>> failed to be able to consume Mapserver 4.6. While we have 
> no reason 
> >>> to blame mapserver (it could easily be our fault) in general 
> >>> mapserver WFS does not get tested as heavily as the WMS, 
> so it would 
> >>> be nice to have another data point that indicates that 
> our problem is 
> >>> in fact our fault, and not Mapservers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> You're right that MapServer's WFS doesn't get tested as 
> much as the 
> >> WMS with 3rd-party clients, simply because WFS is not as 
> widely used 
> >> as WMS. We know that Tom and Bart (CC'd on this reply) use 
> it a lot, 
> >> so they may be able to comment on the testing they've done. 
> >> Unfortunately I don't think there is much we'll be able to 
> do on WFS 
> >> before the 4.6 release if we want it out today, so if any 
> fixes are 
> >> required they would have to wait for 4.6.1 (and after MUM3).
> >>
> >> BTW, have you tried testing it with Cadcorp Mapbrowser? 
> How did it go? 
> >> I think we've used MapServer with it succesfully in the past, but 
> >> maybe some recent changes broke something?
> >>
> >> Daniel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>   Daniel Morissette               dmorissette at dmsolutions.ca
>   DM Solutions Group              http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>