RFC 16: MapScript WxS Services

[Sean Gillies]

On May 18, 2006, at 8:31 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> It turns out I'm very keen to get "committing" on RFC 16, so I would
>> like to promote my request for comments to a request for votes to  
>> proceed.
>> Given no vetos by the end of Tuesday afternoon I could get committing
>> Tuesday night.
>
> Folks,
>
> On a review of the RFC 16 email in my folder, I don't see any  
> +1's.  So
> even taken my own as implicit it appears the RFC has failed to pass.
>
> Should I take this as a lack of support for the proposal?  Before the
> formal call for votes it seemed to have general support.
>
> I have tried to address Tamas's concerns about multi-threading and
> the msIO code, basically by claiming that I'm just using the existing
> mechanism and not making things any worse for multi-threading.  I  
> tried
> to respond to some of SteveW's suggestion regarding msIO filters by
> basically claiming this would be hard to expose properly in mapscript.
>
> If our chairman has no problem with it, I will leave the vote on  
> RFC 16
> open till the end of day tomorrow for votes.
>
> I'll state my vote now as +1 for my own proposal as it stands.
>
> PS. I will hold off on re-issuing RFC 17 (dynamic arrays) till after I
> get the RFC 16 work done.  I don't want to confuse things too much.
>
> Best regards,

There's no real deadline to collect supporting votes, is there? My  
understanding of the 2 day period was that it gave time for  
dissenters to speak up. Anyhow, I'm not a dissenter, I'm ambivalent  
on RFC 16.

Sean

---
Sean Gillies
http://zcologia.com