feedback on possible mapserver enhancements

Daniel Morissette dmorissette at MAPGEARS.COM
Mon Feb 4 12:15:37 EST 2008

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 

Daniel Morissette

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list