feedback on possible mapserver enhancements

[Daniel Morissette]

thomas bonfort wrote:
>>> And last but not least :
>>> * what would you think of having a wfs-t implementation for mapserver,
>>> probably at first limited to postgis backends, and based on the
>>> tinyows project?
>> A year ago I would have said no, but several times in recent months I've had questions
>> from folks that seem to use WFS-T as a means of selecting their web rendering tool. It's
>> becoming a differentiating feature. I'm not familiar with TinyOWS though. Are you
>> suggesting assimilating TinyOWS?
> 
> the advantage of this would be to avoid having to deploy another
> server along side mapserver in order to treat the wfs-t side of an
> application,as you pointed out. in finality it would mean porting of
> the tinyows code into mapserver.
> 

There is so much demand for WFS-T by our users that I am slowly giving 
up and starting to think that we may have to do WFS-T in the end. Please 
don't tell anyone that I wrote that. ;) ;)

I am not sure about integrating TinyOWS code... I have never looked at 
TinyOWS, but wouldn't a simple merge be messy? How would that fit with 
existing mapwfs.c code? Could we not just extend the current 
implementation (and make the necessary architecture changes) to support 
transactions?

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