[mapserver-dev] RFC 67 - Enable/Disable Layers in OGC Web Services

[Lime, Steve D (DNR)]

The only reason I suggest keeping the keyword is that it might involve editing
every layer, not that we've shied away from that in the past or even this release.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Boudreault [mailto:aboudreault at mapgears.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 12:36 PM
To: mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
Cc: Lime, Steve D (DNR); Daniel Morissette
Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] RFC 67 - Enable/Disable Layers in OGC Web Services

Personnally, I think we should remove completely that keyword rather keeping 
it without usage. I'm going to remove its usage tomorrow, let me know if I 
have to remove the mapfile keyword also. 

Alan

On April 11, 2011 01:30:47 pm Lime, Steve D (DNR) wrote:
> If dump is no longer used and it's use was limited to the OGC service code
> then now would be a great time to remove it. We could leave keyword as
> being recognized but deprecated and just do nothing in that case. I'd say
> pull it from the layer structures then.
> 
> I agree, don't touch the template thing. That would broader non-OGC
> impacts.
> 
> Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniel
> Morissette Sent: Friday, April 08, 2011 3:58 PM
> To: mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] RFC 67 - Enable/Disable Layers in OGC Web
> Services
> 
> On 11-03-25 02:02 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
> > Devs,
> > 
> > Currently, the DUMP keyword has to be set to allow a few OGC requests.
> > ie. WFS GetFeatureInfo. Since we implemented a way to Enable/Disable OGC
> > web services, what about removing that mandatory setting? At the same
> > time, I would also remove the TEMPLATE dependency to see if a layer is
> > queryable or not. I suppose that to see if a layer is queryable, we
> > would have to check the GetFeature/GetFeatureInfo in the
> > *_enable_request?
> 
> I'd say we should try to drop the DUMP keyword before the next beta if
> we can and if other devs don't expect a problem with that (maybe write a
> motion and discuss it, like we did for the removal of symbol keywords a
> few days ago). I'm thinking especially Assefa and Steve may have an
> opinion on this.
> 
> With respect to the template vs query thing, I don't think we should
> touch it.
> 
> Daniel

-- 
Alan Boudreault
Mapgears
http://www.mapgears.com