[mapserver-dev] MS RFC 68: Support for combining features from multiple layers (Call for discussion)

[Lime, Steve D (DNR)]

Sorry, I mean clustering shouldn’t be a new connection type, rather a block or optionally a set of processing directives, so:

LAYER
   NAME mypoints
   TYPE POINT
   # whatever data and/or connection params

  CLUSTERS # or processing directives

  END
  # class and style info

END

The decision to use a block or processing directives would depend on the complexity of configuration. If clustering could
potentially support lots of tuning then I’d favor an explicit configuration block.

I think both pieces of functionality outlined are potentially useful. I’d recommend limiting the scope of the RFC to clustering
to start with… There is some limited (and non-configurable) support for not labeling over point features already present in
the label cache code so I see more limited utility in the layer combination portion of the RFC.

Steve

From: mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Tamas Szekeres
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:38 AM
To: Lime, Steve D (DNR)
Cc: mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] MS RFC 68: Support for combining features from multiple layers (Call for discussion)


2011/2/15 Lime, Steve D (DNR) <Steve.Lime at state.mn.us<mailto:Steve.Lime at state.mn.us>>

I see value in both but kinda think they should be handled with separate RFCs since you don’t need one for the
other and neither problem is trivial.

Steve,

I can accept to create separate RFCs (however I require them both in my project to succeed ;-)

At least on the clustering side I don’t think that should be handled as a connection type. Rather I’d favor a new
CLUSTER block where you’d set the various tolerance and scale values. That way you could add clustering to a
point layer without much effort. I think it needs to be that simple.


I don't see the difference with regards to the data processing. For the setting of the parameters via a CLUSTER block instead of some PROCESSING option doesn't seem to differ significantly. But if you want to include this algorithm somewhere into the MapServer core that would be another case.

Best regards,

Tamas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20110215/b74d846f/attachment-0001.html