[mapserver-dev] Support for the MapInfo style zoom layeringoption.

[Tamas Szekeres]

2008/6/26 Steve Lime <Steve.Lime at dnr.state.mn.us>:
> We could establish precedence, if either of the scale values are set, then use those. If not, then check width.
> That way you'd need just the two new members...
>

I think it's less restrictive to allow them all to be specified in
parallel, and the layer would be displayed if all of the conditions
are true, like

MINSCALEDENOM 500
MAXSCALEDENOM 1000
MAXWIDTH 1000

would be considered like:  (scale > 500) && (scale < 1000) && (width < 1000)


How about using the names MINZOOMWIDTH and MAXZOOMWIDTH?


Tamas


> Steve
>
>>>> On 6/25/2008 at 5:46 PM, in message
> <f3b73b7d0806251546s3a82f8c8t9d1fbca169d2fb2a at mail.gmail.com>, "Tamas Szekeres"
> <szekerest at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Daniel,
>>
>> 2008/6/26 Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com>:
>>> Tamas Szekeres wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Did you mean by adding 3 extra members to the layerObj or you are
>>>> thinking about adding these new keywords only to the parser and the
>>>> specified MINWIDTH/MAXWIDTH values would eventually be stored in the
>>>> current minscaledemom/maxscaledenom members?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I meant also adding 2 new members in the layerObj as well... I think this is
>>> more or less what you initially suggested, right?
>>>
>>
>> Yes that is exactly what I was proposing. How we distinguish between
>> these 2 methods, should we think about an internal 'unspecified'
>> value?
>> like minwidth = -1 would mean that this parameter shouldn't actually
>> be taken into account in msLayerIsVisible.
>>
>> Tamas
>> _______________________________________________
>> mapserver-dev mailing list
>> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>
>