RFC 36 revised, call for vote (or more comments)...

[Daniel Morissette]

Steve Lime wrote:
> Fair enough. Perhaps these types of features should be implemented in a sandbox first?
> 
> Steve
> 


I'm not sure if a sandbox could help in this case. My worries are more 
long term, once that's released and the users start using the feature in 
real life apps, or when we try to extend it, we may then discover that 
we missed something important in our thinking.

I think it's the bit where we set the template inside the outputformat 
object that feels a bit odd to me:

1- OUTPUTFORMATs are for rendering maps, but templates operate only on 
query resultsets... so we end up with some OUTPUTFORMATs that work only 
for queries which feels a bit clunky... or did I miss something?

2- The OUTPUTFORMAT concept to me refers to an actual file format (e.g. 
GIF, PNG, etc, or even KML, SVG, GeoJSON, etc.) ... however when we 
assign a template we actually tie the OUTPUTFORMAT to a specific set of 
layers... this is more like a profile of the format than the format itself.

I don't want to be splitting hairs in 4 (do you have that expression in 
English?), but there is something in this that bugs me and worries me 
for the long term viability of this feature.

Actually Assefa's RFC-39 gives me the same feeling...

Daniel


>>>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at MAPGEARS.COM> 11/23/07 3:47 PM >>>
> Steve Lime wrote:
>> Hi all: Back at it. I've updated RFC 36 to incorporate comments from folks and would like to throw it out there again for comments and/or a vote. Please see it at:
>>
>>   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-36/
>>
> 
> Sorry for the late vote. I really like the proposal but I can't give 
> this a full +1 because I am not convinced that I understand all the 
> possible ramifications well enough, so I'll have to go with a +0.
> 
> Daniel


-- 
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/