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

Fri Mar 25 14:02:41 EDT 2011

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?

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Alan

On February 15, 11 09:09:24 am Daniel Morissette wrote:
> At the sprint, it is this issue of turning on/off layers that led us to
> this idea of reorganising all OGC web service metadata, but it was not a
> direct solution to the problem of enabling/disabling layers/requests,
> but more a tangent that we ended up taking as part of our brainstorming,
> in part because we could not come up with a clean solution to the
> show/hide layer problem at the time.
> 
> I see RFC 67 and its simple solution to this complicated issue as a
> separate task from this metadata reorganization. RFC 67 adds only a
> couple of metadata keywords when we've already got dozens, so there is
> no reason that the metadata refactoring needs to happen in sync' with
> RFC 67.
> 
> IF we were to proceed with a metadata refactoring we'd need to put more
> thoughts and time into it and its possible impacts, make sure the new
> solution really works better, produce a RFC for it, etc... so I think it
> may be a bit late to do that for 6.0 and we should continue with RFC 67
> as is. As Steve wrote, both mechanisms can be made to work in parallel
> so this could be done in a 6.x release too if one decides that this is a
> high enough priority to put time into it.
> 
> That's my 0.02$ on the question... what do you think?
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 11-02-14 11:46 AM, Lime, Steve D (DNR) wrote:
> > We could consider supporting the more specific OWS block with an option
> > to populate it via standard metadata for backwards compatibility. Then
> > if users want the extra control the OWS block would provide they'd need
> > to move to definition via that mechanism.
> > 
> > E.g. wms_title key maps to a title key in the OWS block.
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alan Boudreault [mailto:aboudreault at mapgears.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 10:25 AM
> > To: mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > Cc: Lime, Steve D (DNR); Jeff McKenna
> > Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] RFC 67 - Enable/Disable Layers in OGC Web
> > Services
> > 
> > IIRC, the reason why we didn't choice that option was because it would
> > have require too many mapfile modifications for the users.
> > 
> > Daniel, please correct me if I'm wrong.
> > 
> > Alan
> > 
> > On February 14, 2011 09:44:30 am Lime, Steve D (DNR) wrote:
> >> I was thinking the same thing. Thanks for pulling these Jeff. The idea
> >> back then was to be explicit with the OWS configs, hence their own
> >> object.
> >> 
> >> Steve
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> >> [mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jeff McKenna
> >> [jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com] Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 8:43 AM
> >> To: mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] RFC 67 - Enable/Disable Layers in OGC Web
> >> Services
> >> 
> >> Hi guys,
> >> 
> >> I just fell upon our old notes from the 2009 code sprint, and in it
> >> contains the example on how we proposed during that meeting to solve
> >> 
> >> this hiding services issue:
> >>     LAYER
> >>     
> >>       ...
> >>       OWS
> >>       
> >>          SERVICE
> >>          
> >>            TYPE WMS
> >>            REQUESTS ALL # ALL, ONE, or specific request to accept for
> >> 
> >> this layer
> >> 
> >>            "key1" "value1"
> >>            "key2" "value2"
> >>          
> >>          END
> >>          SERVICE
> >>          
> >>            TYPE WFS
> >>            REQUESTS ...
> >>            ...
> >>          
> >>          END
> >>       
> >>       END
> >>     
> >>     END
> >> 
> >> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/wiki/TorontoCodeSprint2009Notes
> >> 
> >> Is there a reason to use metadata instead of the above?
> >> 
> >> -jeff
> >> 
> >> On 11-02-10 4:11 PM, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> >>> Hello Alan, Daniel, and Assefa,
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks for putting together this RFC, for this much-needed enhancement.
> >>> I must say that I am impressed with the elaborate solution proposed. As
> >>> I was reading it I had some questions about what-overrides-what, but I
> >>> see that is covered in the 'Inheritance' section. Regarding disabling
> >>> all services by default, I totally agree with this and now is the time
> >>> to make this change. It just puts pressure on the documentation to make
> >>> sure it is explained well :)
> >>> 
> >>> -jeff
> >>> 
> >>> On 11-02-09 10:18 PM, Alan Boudreault wrote:
> >>>> Hi devs,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Daniel, Assefa and I worked on the ability to enable/disable layers in
> >>>> OGC Web
> >>>> Services. We tried to choose the easiest solution from a user point of
> >>>> view.
> >>>> We would like to get this for the release 6.0.
> >>>> 
> >>>> http://mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-67.html
> >>>> 
> >>>> Let us know your comments and thoughts.
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mapserver-dev mailing list
> >> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
> >> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> mapserver-dev mailing list
> >> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev

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