[pygeoapi] PSC vote: RFC5: Enhanced data limit handling

[Jorge S. Mendes de Jesus]

I think for now it is good enough
+1

But it will more efford than expected to have everything at 100%

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 13:36, Youssef Harby via pygeoapi <
pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org> wrote:

> +1
> Could we also consider allowing maxitems, defaultitems, maxdistance, etc.,
> to support an indicator (like unlimited or -1) for cases where users need
> the full resource or no limits/pagination applied? This would provide more
> flexibility without being tied to a fixed number, especially for servers
> with small layers/resources servers...
>
> From: "Angelos Tzotsos via pygeoapi"<pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org>
> Date: Mon, Jan 6, 2025, 2:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [pygeoapi] PSC vote: RFC5: Enhanced data limit handling
> To: <pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org>
> +1
> Angelos
>
> On 1/6/25 03:44, Tom Kralidis via pygeoapi wrote:
> > Hi all: FYI per subject, putting RFC5 [1] to PSC vote.
> >
> > I will start with my +1.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > ..Tom
> >
> > [1] https://pygeoapi.io/development/rfc/5
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pygeoapi mailing list
> > pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> > https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
>
>
> --
> Angelos Tzotsos, PhD
> President, Board of Directors
> Open Source Geospatial Foundation
> https://www.osgeo.org/member/angelos-tzotsos/
>
> _______________________________________________
> pygeoapi mailing list
> pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
> _______________________________________________
> pygeoapi mailing list
> pygeoapi at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/pygeoapi
>


-- 
OpenPGP Key: 0x7212572C
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/pygeoapi/attachments/20250106/f67e1556/attachment.htm>