[mapserver-users] Status on ticket 2582?

[Martin Kofahl]

Hm, I'm not certain sure if MS_DELETE is really a good value for the 
STATUS key. It's more an attribute ... 'STATUS ON, MS_DELETE'. Using 
MS_DELETE coequal with OFF would break the DEFAULT value which is quite 
useful when avoiding grouped layers -- I don't like nesting in the 
Capabilities document because of one simple copyright layer which can be 
hidden an set to default.

As far as I can see there are three possible solutions:

- adding MS_DELETE as an attribute to ON, OFF and DEFAULT (not sure how 
hard to implement)

- adding a new keyword HIDDEN [false|true] coequal to STATUS

- some kind of ows_hidden 'true' in the metadata (I'm neither sure when 
one could require a distinction by service type)


Kind regards
Martin


paalkr wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Thanks Daniel for taking responsibility for this issue, which has been
> around for far to long :-) I agree that ticket 1952 discusses a more
> flexible functionality, but I don't think we need to make this more
> complicated than it is already. I can't see a situation where you would like
> to hide a layer from one service type, but not in an other (but thats my
> opinion). Fixing the 2582 bug would satisfy many of the user needs on this
> issue.
> 
> Taking the GROUP functionality into consideration seems to be important, as
> this possibly could cause some mixup if a hidden layer is inside a group
> layer. What if all layers inside a GROUP is hidden? Should the group layer
> still be exposed in the capabilities document? I'd say yes, but other may
> have a different opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Pål Kristensen
> 
> 
> Martin Kofahl wrote:
>> Perfect! Although the solution described in ticket 1952 might be more 
>> flexible for future use.
>>
>> Daniel Morissette wrote:
>>> paalkr wrote:
>>>> Hi all devs!
>>>>
>>>> What is the status on ticket 
>>>> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/2582
>>>> 2582 ? Is this going to be included in 5.4?
>>>>
>>> Yes, we'll take care of it for 5.4.
>>>
>>> Daniel