[mapserver-dev] RFC 105 : Support for WFS 2.0 (server side)

[Andrea Peri]

Hi,
I'm not sure to well understand the question due to my poor english.

But, the wfs 1.1.0 specs will allow the sort clausole adding this parameter
in the url request:
It is allowable also in a post request.

This example:

...&sortBy=field1+D,field2+A


will sort on field1 ascending and field2 descending.

Andrea.



2013/11/24 Even Rouault <even.rouault at mines-paris.org>

> Le dimanche 24 novembre 2013 00:42:23, Martin Kofahl a écrit :
> > Hi Even,
> > amazing work you've done!
> >
> > After reading through the rfc I'm convinced that, regarding paging
> support,
> > we should require an order statement for rdbms connections or at least
> > mention it in the docs and all sample mapfiles
> (wfs_200_cite_postgis.map),
> > as unexpected getfeature responses are likely to occur (think of load
> > balancers).
>
> I'm not sure we must enforce it in code (the table refered in the mapfile
> could
> be a view that has already a ORDER BY clause, and we wouldn't know), but
> perhaps we can strongly recommand it in the doc.
>
> > Then i wondered about the wfs_cite_wfs2 flag. According the the
> > wfs spec the service parameter is mandatory (7.6.2.3), so this might be
> > more a cite issue.
>
> Yes, the service parameter is mandatory, but the following CITE test tries
> to
> check server behaviour when a mandatory parameter is missing
>
>
>     /**
>      * A GET request that omits a mandatory query parameter must produce a
>      * response with status code 400 (Bad Request) and an exception report
>      * containing the exception code {@code MissingParameterValue}.
>      *
>      * @see "ISO 19142:2010, cl. 7.5: Exception reporting"
>      * @see "OGC 06-121r3, cl. 8: Exception reports"
>      * @see "OGC 06-121r3, cl. A.4.1.5: HTTP response status code"
>      */
>     @Test
>     public void getCapabilities_missingServiceParam() {
>
> Unfortunately they've chosen the SERVICE parameter as a missing parameter,
> which is annoying when the server also implement other protocols. That
> would
> have been better if they had chosen VERSION in a DescribeFeatureType
> request
> for example.
>
> > Will you remove the flag when all testing is done?
>
> Not in that file, since it is used for testing of CITE compliance. But in
> normal mapfiles that don't try to be CITE pedantic, it is unnecessary.
>
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> > 2013/11/21 Even Rouault <even.rouault at mines-paris.org>
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As I announced a few weeks ago, WFS 2.0 implementation + Inspire
> Download
> > > Services was in the works.
> > > Please find http://www.mapserver.org/development/rfc/ms-rfc-105.htmlfor
> > > review. A candidate implementation is available in a branch mentionned
> in
> > > the
> > > RFC.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Even
> > >
> > > --
> > > Geospatial professional services
> > > http://even.rouault.free.fr/services.html
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mapserver-dev mailing list
> > > mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>
> --
> Geospatial professional services
> http://even.rouault.free.fr/services.html
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-dev mailing list
> mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>



-- 
-----------------
Andrea Peri
. . . . . . . . .
qwerty àèìòù
-----------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20131124/41c9d514/attachment.html>