dmorissette at mapgears.com
Wed Oct 8 15:18:05 EDT 2008
I too think that a RFC would be better to properly document the new
mechanism. It doesn't have to be long, but will help a lot in the future
by providing a place we can point users to.
Steve Lime wrote:
> Maybe a real short one, just because it's related to core, and potentially hazardous portions
> of the code. Steve W. had some good suggestions and it's tough to tell where things are
> at with the ticket.
>>>> On 10/3/2008 at 5:29 PM, in message
> <30fe546d0810031529i3012508cpedbeb6ba0ef90f3b at mail.gmail.com>, "Paul Ramsey"
> <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca> wrote:
>> I've moved this to an enhancement ticket. Do you feel this is RFC worthy?
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Paul Ramsey <pramsey at cleverelephant.ca> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Jeff McKenna
>>> <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> 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.
>>>> Yes I definitely agree with the need for this. I give a strong +1 for this
>>>> potential RFC.
>>> Great, I'll write it up !
>>>> By the way Paul you got strong applause when the Sol Katz award for you was
>>>> announced, and everyone liked your video. Congrats!
>>> Thanks Jeff!
>> mapserver-dev mailing list
>> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the mapserver-dev