[mapserver-users] WFS Layers not visualized and big size?

[Rahkonen Jukka]

Hi,

Allright, you are using Mapserver for reading from WFS and pushing rendered images out.  I thought first that you were using Mapserver as WFS server for some other client.  As far as I know WFS layer behaves like any other vector layer and there shouldn't be any special reason that prevents your second layer that comes from external WFS source to show.  I guess that you are right with the assumption of layer order.  Perhaps the invisible layer gets covered by some other, non-transparent layer.  Check that raster layers are under vector layers, and that filled, non-transparent polygon layers do not cover other layers.  Mapfile is rendered from top to bottom, thus the first layer in the mapfile goes to the bottom and the following ones are piled on top of that.

-Jukka-

mehmet wrote:


> Hi,
> I'm using a mapserver 4.10 client for visualizing which contains several layers such as vector (points > and lines from a wfs server;  some polygons from wms.. both severs are mine) and raster layers.
> I think in this case the order is important, because only the first layer that appears 
> in the client is visualized. The following layer which is below disappears, but its symbol or color > is shown in the legend...


-m.sirin



Hi,

What client are you using for visualizing?  I guess many clients have been designed to handle only one feature type at a time.  If GetFeature packet contains features from several featuretypes the client should in any case split them to separate layers before rendering.  Big size in not a surprise, files are containing all the coordinates and attribute data in text format.

Consider WFS as data transfer system and think again if few seconds per request is long or not with the amount of data you get with your requests.  Your client is receiving all the data, both the coordinates and attributes and thus the situation corresponds to downloading the data as shapefiles or something.  I don't mean to say that you should be happy with the speed, it may well be extraordinary slow.  But WFS is always slower that WMS.  For speeding up the system the WFS requests should not be bigger than reasonable (not the whole featuretype if area of interest is just the screen size), no unnecessary attributes should be included with the data, and the client should cache the received data and not ask the server to resend everything again if user is just zooming and panning on the already visited area.


-Jukka Rahkonen-



-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/WFS-Layers-not-visualized-and-big-size--tp2583277p2584493.html
Sent from the Mapserver - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
mapserver-users mailing list
mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users