[mapserver-users] Mapserver 5.4 & SYMBOLSET

[Guillaume Sueur]

Hi,

I think what David meant was about getting an error when SYMBOLSET is
not declared in the symbol file since 5.4.

I ran into the same problem, and had to add SYMBOLSET ... END to my
symbol files to have them running fine with MapServer 5.4.

Is it something newly added, or just a long lasting requisite become
mandatory ?

Regards,

Guillaume

Daniel Morissette a écrit :
> Are you sure that the file you are editing is really the one used by
> your mapfile? That's a common mistake... to verify that, try inserting
> an invalid keyword in place of the SYMBOLSET keyword in your file and
> verify that MapServer produces a parser error about it. If it doesn't
> then it's probably not using the file you think it is.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> David Nugent wrote:
> It starts (and ends) like this:
> 
> SYMBOLSET
> 
>   SYMBOL
>         NAME    "point"
>         TYPE    ELLIPSE
>         POINTS
>                 1 1
>         END
>         FILLED  TRUE
>   END
> 
>   SYMBOL
>         NAME    "dashed"
>         TYPE    ELLIPSE
>         POINTS
>                 1 1
>         END
>         FILLED  TRUE
>         STYLE
>                 8 6 8 6
>         END
>   END
> 
> ...
> 
> END
> 
> 
> Regards,
> David
> 
> 
> On 30/04/2009, at 1:13 PM, Steve Lime wrote:
> 
>>>> Can you share your symbolset file? I've not had an issue with that
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>>>> David Nugent <davidn at datalinktech.com.au> 04/29/09 9:54 PM >>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I've recently upgraded to mapserver 5.4 and hit a problem with
>>>> SYMBOLSET.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that a file containing symbols referenced from the .map file
>>>> must now contain a SYMBOLSET keyword at the start (and presumably end
>>>> with END?). I made this change, but the parser still complains with
>>>> the message "First token must be SYMBOLSET".
>>>>
>>>> Not really wanting to waste time on debugging the lex code, I simply
>>>> removed the check that emits this error from mapsymbol.c and all works
>>>> as expected. Obviously there is a deeper problem, whether it be the
>>>> logic in that statement (which appears to be correct as far as I can
>>>> tell) or the lex parser itself.
>>>>
>>>> I'm just wondering if anyone else had hit the same problem.
_______________________________________________
mapserver-users mailing list
mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users