RFC 16: MapScript WxS Services

Frank Warmerdam warmerdam at POBOX.COM
Fri May 19 00:23:30 EDT 2006

Stephen Woodbridge wrote:
> So I'll vote +0 (neutral but ok to proceed) on your proposal as is. I 
> think it would be a big win if you and Tamas could collaborate on this 
> in some way, but if I recall correctly you already have your proposal 
> roughly implemented and ready to check in if approved, so a delay might 
> be painful.


A modest delay isn't the end of the world.  I don't mind revising my
proposal in response to specific suggestions as long as they seem reasonable.

I think Tamas's main thrust is the need for "io contexts" for the msIO
layer.  I don't disagree that this would be desirable, but I would *claim*
that this is largely decoupled from my proposal.  It can be as easily
pursued separately as together with RFC 16.

Furthermore, I'm already working pretty cheaply in implementing the mapscript
work for my client.  Adding in responsible to restructure essentially all
mapserver io to use io contexts would dramatically increase the effort,
risk and time to completion.  So I feel loading io contexts onto RFC 16 is
unwarranted.  I also have substantial reservations about the ability for
us to implement io contexts without substantial disruption to existing
mapscript applications.

So I would prefer to see any RFC on io contexts broad forward on as it's
own RFC, and judged on it's own merits.

Best regards,
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam at pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGF, http://osgeo.org

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list