jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com
Thu Oct 2 08:42:47 EDT 2008
Paul Ramsey wrote:
> Is there a reason that IGNORE_MISSING_DATA is a compile-time option? I
> have a client request to make it a run-time option, and also add the
> ability to run-time configure to error out in the case of WMS client
> layers that fail.
> I can RFC this, though it's relatively small... IGNORE_MISSING_DATA
> would go away as a compile time option, the run-time behavior would
> remain as the default (fail on missing) and there'd be a couple of
> PROCESSING directives to fail (or not) on missing data and failed WMS
> client layers.
> Thinking aloud, there's a number of ways data can be missing, in a
> number of places
> -- wms client layers
> -- wfs client layers
> -- missing data files
> -- missing files referenced by tile indexes
> -- bad database connections
> -- failed SQL statements
> Establishing and adding global policy would involve touching a great
> deal of code. Hm. Unfortunately, I only have interest in the
> tile-indexed-rasters and wms clients areas.
> Anyone else have interests in this field of endeavor?
Yes I definitely agree with the need for this. I give a strong +1 for
this potential RFC.
By the way Paul you got strong applause when the Sol Katz award for you
was announced, and everyone liked your video. Congrats!
More information about the mapserver-dev