exporting layers to OGC interfaces

[Frank Warmerdam]

Paul Ramsey wrote:
> But it is what we are used to. Changing behavior is worse. I mean, I 
> don't write a WMS map file and then not test it to see what capabilities 
> it is advertising. So the fact that it is advertising all my layers is 
> hardly a surprise.  On the other hand, "upgrading" my mapserver and 
> finding that all my layers mysteriously "disappear" from my service -- 
> *that* would be a surprise.
> 
> P
> 
> Daniel Morissette wrote:
>> Paul Ramsey wrote:
>>> In order to retain current behavior, the absence of the keyword 
>>> should be equivalent to "all", and there should be a "none".
>>>
>>
>> I really meant to suggest that we break compatibility because the 
>> current behavior is opening up everyone's data by default, which I 
>> find bad.

Folks,

I think I see Daniel's point, but I am not at all that an "information
protection" default is worth the disruption of changing the default
behavior.  So, I'm not in favor of changing the default unless a more
compelling case can be made for it.

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 OSGeo, http://osgeo.org