MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Steve Lime
Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring the styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth
which doesn't seem to send that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit useless. Or am I missing something
with?

Steve
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Kralidis,Tom [Ontario]
 
Steve: see ticket http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/1088  Rationale, changes, the whole explanation is in there.

________________________________

From: UMN MapServer Developers List on behalf of Steve Lime
Sent: Thu 11-Oct-07 15:47
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...



Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring the styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth
which doesn't seem to send that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit useless. Or am I missing something
with?

Steve
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

John Cole X
In reply to this post by Steve Lime
Steve,
  I ran into this yesterday.  I had a wms layer in a mapfile calling another server.  The MS5 threw the styles parameter error, but the MS4 (same mapfile) worked ok.

John

Steve Lime wrote
Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring the styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth
which doesn't seem to send that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit useless. Or am I missing something
with?

Steve
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

tbonfort
In reply to this post by Steve Lime
I don't know if you got it working or not, but here's how I did:
- in the refresh tab of the GE layer, I enter 'http://localhost/~tom/cgi-bin/mapserv?STYLES=&map=/gro/jsigmaps/spdc.map ' in the wms window
- once i've selected the layers i want, i then tweak the url of the ge layer and switch format=image/png to format=myaggoutputformat , as the upscaling by GE of the gd rendered image is rather ugly

tb

On 10/11/07, Steve Lime <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring the styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth
which doesn't seem to send that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit useless. Or am I missing something
with?

Steve

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Frank Warmerdam
In reply to this post by Steve Lime
Steve Lime wrote:
> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring the
> styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth which doesn't seem to send
> that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit useless. Or am
> I missing something with?

Steve,

I haven't run into this myself, but I have heard problems on IRC.

I personally think it is wrong headed for us to require the styles
parameter.  If we want to have a "pendantic" mode that requires it that
would be find, but I don't see why we should require it by default
regardless of what the standard might say.

I would suggest we be permissive in what we require.

I think this is something that ought to be "fixed" in 5.0.1.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Kralidis,Tom [Ontario]
 
I can understand the issues which can evolve from folks used to pre-5.0 behaviour w.r.t. styles.
 
At the same time, any WMS client will run into a service exception when not passing styles to ANY WMS SERVER, not just MapServer 5.0 WMS.
 
Ticket 1088 documents the rationale, as well as supporting documentation and notes in MIGRATION_GUIDE.TXT.
 
..Tom
 

________________________________

From: UMN MapServer Developers List on behalf of Frank Warmerdam
Sent: Sat 13-Oct-07 18:26
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-DEV] MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...



Steve Lime wrote:
> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring the
> styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth which doesn't seem to send
> that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit useless. Or am
> I missing something with?

Steve,

I haven't run into this myself, but I have heard problems on IRC.

I personally think it is wrong headed for us to require the styles
parameter.  If we want to have a "pendantic" mode that requires it that
would be find, but I don't see why we should require it by default
regardless of what the standard might say.

I would suggest we be permissive in what we require.

I think this is something that ought to be "fixed" in 5.0.1.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org <http://osgeo.org/>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Frank Warmerdam
Kralidis,Tom [Burlington] wrote:
>
> I can understand the issues which can evolve from folks used to pre-5.0
> behaviour w.r.t. styles.
>
> At the same time, any WMS client will run into a service exception when not
> passing styles to ANY WMS SERVER, not just MapServer 5.0 WMS.
>
> Ticket 1088 documents the rationale, as well as supporting documentation and
> notes in MIGRATION_GUIDE.TXT.

Tom,

http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/1088 is quite a long ticket.  I've
read through the whole thing and I don't see anything that looks like a
justification other than "The spec says they're required."  That doesn't
seem like much of a justification to me.

Could you perhaps re-pose the justification?

At this point I still think we should be forgiving.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Howard Butler
In reply to this post by Frank Warmerdam
On Oct 13, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Steve Lime wrote:
>> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and  
>> requiring the
>> styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth which doesn't seem  
>> to send
>> that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit  
>> useless. Or am
>> I missing something with?
>
> Steve,
>
> I haven't run into this myself, but I have heard problems on IRC.
>
> I personally think it is wrong headed for us to require the styles
> parameter.  If we want to have a "pendantic" mode that requires it  
> that
> would be find, but I don't see why we should require it by default
> regardless of what the standard might say.
>
> I would suggest we be permissive in what we require.
>
> I think this is something that ought to be "fixed" in 5.0.1.
>

I agree.  The benefit of enforcing this is negligible.  Same for  
width and height too, frankly.  Do the CITE tests require these?

I would like to go back to being more lax about these, especially  
when we can get reasonable defaults from the map file for width/
height and when styles= infers absolutely nothing to anyone.

Howard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Bart van den Eijnden-3
I tend to disagree. As a person having worked a lot with standards, I think all vendors implementing a standard should comply with the contract lay down in the standard.

Remember ESRI's ArcMap up until 9.1 did not send the required parameter QUERY_LAYERS in a GetFeatureInfo request. I did not hear anybody on this list advocate that Mapserver should be made permissive and assume QUERY_LAYERS equals LAYERS. If you would go this path then the end is near. Though it would have solved a long-standing irritating/frustrating issue between Mapserver WMS and ESRI's ArcMap (and there are still a lot of 9.0/9.1 ArcMap's out there).

Also, imagine falling back on the MAP file's width and height if not specified, I could write a simple WMS javascript client and forget the width and height parameters in the url, the WMS client would write out <img src="..." width="650" height="450"> and the browser would totally distort the image if the MAP file says something else then SIZE 650 450.

It just shows which clients are not correctly implementing a spec, and frankly, the sooner the better. Go and bother the GE people and say they are missing a required parameter.

Personally I can not think of a reason why styles is required but has a default value, but maybe the people who wrote the WMS spec had a perfectly good reason for it. But if you do not agree it is a required parameter, go to the OGC and debate why styles should not be a required parameter ...

Best regards,
Bart

On 10/14/07, Howard Butler <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Oct 13, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Steve Lime wrote:
>> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and
>> requiring the
>> styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth which doesn't seem
>> to send
>> that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit
>> useless. Or am
>> I missing something with?
>
> Steve,
>
> I haven't run into this myself, but I have heard problems on IRC.
>
> I personally think it is wrong headed for us to require the styles
> parameter.  If we want to have a "pendantic" mode that requires it
> that
> would be find, but I don't see why we should require it by default
> regardless of what the standard might say.
>
> I would suggest we be permissive in what we require.
>
> I think this is something that ought to be "fixed" in 5.0.1.
>

I agree.  The benefit of enforcing this is negligible.  Same for
width and height too, frankly.  Do the CITE tests require these?

I would like to go back to being more lax about these, especially
when we can get reasonable defaults from the map file for width/
height and when styles= infers absolutely nothing to anyone.

Howard

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Steve Lime
In reply to this post by tbonfort
I got it working, same way as you did,  but I wouldn't expect a casual user to figure that out...

Steve

>>> On 10/12/2007 at 1:46 AM, in message
<[hidden email]>, thomas bonfort
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't know if you got it working or not, but here's how I did:
> - in the refresh tab of the GE layer, I enter '
> http://localhost/~tom/cgi-bin/mapserv?STYLES=&map=/gro/jsigmaps/spdc.map' in
> the wms window
> - once i've selected the layers i want, i then tweak the url of the ge layer
> and switch format=image/png to format=myaggoutputformat , as the upscaling
> by GE of the gd rendered image is rather ugly
>
> tb
>
> On 10/11/07, Steve Lime <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring
>> the styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth
>> which doesn't seem to send that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS
>> servers a bit useless. Or am I missing something
>> with?
>>
>> Steve
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Steve Lime
In reply to this post by Steve Lime
Bart: In principle I agree with you.

From a practical point point of view I think it's silly not to work with the largest
WMS clients out there without additional configuration on the users part. I wasn't
aware of the ArcMap issue but would advocate supporting that variation too. It's
not like we're talking about some minor client, I mean, it's Google Earth and ArcGIS.

Fine, we should let them know they are not compliant (good luck), but making it
hard for the users of those packages doesn't help. They are unlikely to have
read the WMS spec and will blame the service provider more often than the
client vendor. These are folks (on the ArcGIS side especially) that we really want
to have a positive experience with open source and open standards.

I need to go back to the documents Tom references but at face value I'd prefer to
see MapServer work seamlessly with *major* clients if at all possible.

Steve

>>> Bart van den Eijnden <[hidden email]> 10/14/07 3:22 PM >>>
I tend to disagree. As a person having worked a lot with standards, I think
all vendors implementing a standard should comply with the contract lay down
in the standard.

Remember ESRI's ArcMap up until 9.1 did not send the required parameter
QUERY_LAYERS in a GetFeatureInfo request. I did not hear anybody on this
list advocate that Mapserver should be made permissive and assume
QUERY_LAYERS equals LAYERS. If you would go this path then the end is near.
Though it would have solved a long-standing irritating/frustrating issue
between Mapserver WMS and ESRI's ArcMap (and there are still a lot of 9.0/9.1
ArcMap's out there).

Also, imagine falling back on the MAP file's width and height if not
specified, I could write a simple WMS javascript client and forget the width
and height parameters in the url, the WMS client would write out <img
src="..." width="650" height="450"> and the browser would totally distort
the image if the MAP file says something else then SIZE 650 450.

It just shows which clients are not correctly implementing a spec, and
frankly, the sooner the better. Go and bother the GE people and say they are
missing a required parameter.

Personally I can not think of a reason why styles is required but has a
default value, but maybe the people who wrote the WMS spec had a perfectly
good reason for it. But if you do not agree it is a required parameter, go
to the OGC and debate why styles should not be a required parameter ...

Best regards,
Bart

On 10/14/07, Howard Butler <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 13, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
> > Steve Lime wrote:
> >> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and
> >> requiring the
> >> styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth which doesn't seem
> >> to send
> >> that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit
> >> useless. Or am
> >> I missing something with?
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > I haven't run into this myself, but I have heard problems on IRC.
> >
> > I personally think it is wrong headed for us to require the styles
> > parameter.  If we want to have a "pendantic" mode that requires it
> > that
> > would be find, but I don't see why we should require it by default
> > regardless of what the standard might say.
> >
> > I would suggest we be permissive in what we require.
> >
> > I think this is something that ought to be "fixed" in 5.0.1.
> >
>
> I agree.  The benefit of enforcing this is negligible.  Same for
> width and height too, frankly.  Do the CITE tests require these?
>
> I would like to go back to being more lax about these, especially
> when we can get reasonable defaults from the map file for width/
> height and when styles= infers absolutely nothing to anyone.
>
> Howard
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Havard Tveite
In reply to this post by Frank Warmerdam
Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Steve Lime wrote:
>> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring the
>> styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth which doesn't seem to send
>> that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit useless. Or am
>> I missing something with?
>
> Steve,
>
> I haven't run into this myself, but I have heard problems on IRC.
>
> I personally think it is wrong headed for us to require the styles
> parameter.  If we want to have a "pendantic" mode that requires it that
> would be find, but I don't see why we should require it by default
> regardless of what the standard might say.
>
> I would suggest we be permissive in what we require.

In my opinion, being permissive should not be the default
behaviour.  A standard is a standard!

If this is a problem, I suggest that it could be "solved"
by letting the users explicitly specify "sloppy" behaviour
(in METADATA?).
In that case, I think we should use "pedantic" (or
preferably the more positive word "compliant" :-) ) as the
default mode of WMS server operation.

--
Håvard Tveite
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, UMB
Drøbakveien 31, POBox 5003, N-1432 Ås, NORWAY
Phone: +47 64965483 Fax: +47 64965401 http://www.umb.no/imt/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Frank Warmerdam
Håvard Tveite wrote:
> In my opinion, being permissive should not be the default
> behaviour.  A standard is a standard!

Håvard,

Well, clearly there is room for well intentioned smart people
to hold different opinions on this matter.  I think we are going
to need a vote on this issue.

> If this is a problem, I suggest that it could be "solved"
> by letting the users explicitly specify "sloppy" behaviour
> (in METADATA?).
> In that case, I think we should use "pedantic" (or
> preferably the more positive word "compliant" :-) ) as the
> default mode of WMS server operation.

If the objective (as Steve has suggested) is to remove one roadblock
for people trying to get going with MapServer and popular client
applications I can't see the benefit of compliant being the default.

I will concede that pendantic carries some negative cannotations,
though it is the mode one runs a compiler like gcc in when you want
absolute C/C++ standards compliance enforcement instead of the usual
"give the programmer a break" behavior.

I will write a tiny RFC on this issue.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Havard Tveite
Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> Håvard Tveite wrote:
>> In my opinion, being permissive should not be the default
>> behaviour.  A standard is a standard!
>
> Håvard,
>
> Well, clearly there is room for well intentioned smart people
> to hold different opinions on this matter.  I think we are going
> to need a vote on this issue.
>
>> If this is a problem, I suggest that it could be "solved"
>> by letting the users explicitly specify "sloppy" behaviour
>> (in METADATA?).
>> In that case, I think we should use "pedantic" (or
>> preferably the more positive word "compliant" :-) ) as the
>> default mode of WMS server operation.
>
> If the objective (as Steve has suggested) is to remove one roadblock
> for people trying to get going with MapServer and popular client
> applications I can't see the benefit of compliant being the default.

Frank,

I think we should do our best to promote standards, and I still
think that being compliant is the best way to do so.

I can see situations where an organisation and/or its "clients"
are using "legacy" software as WMS consumers, and in such cases
I think it would be reasonable to provide a "sloppy" option (for
advanced users).

I think UMN Mapserver now has become a player to consider among
WMS mapserver software, so if Mapserver is WMS compliant, makers
of WMS client software will be "encouraged" to conform to the
standards.

--
Håvard Tveite
Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, UMB
Drøbakveien 31, POBox 5003, N-1432 Ås, NORWAY
Phone: +47 64965483 Fax: +47 64965401 http://www.umb.no/imt/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Paul Spencer-2
In reply to this post by Steve Lime
I find it amusing that the standard is about interoperability but  
implementing the standard breaks interoperability :)

All major web browsers implement support for various HTML standards  
in 'Standards Compliance Mode' and include a nasty thing called  
'Quirks Mode' which allows the browsers to handle all kinds of non-
compliant HTML markup.  Users of web browsers expect them to 'just  
work' when viewing content over the web.  I doubt a browser would get  
much adoption if some/most of the content on the web was not viewable  
because it wasn't compliant with some standard.

Users of ArcXxxx, GE, and any other WMS client are going to feel the  
same way.  If they connect to content, they want to be able to see  
it, not be told their client software isn't implementing the standard  
exactly and completely.  I know the analogy isn't quite right, but at  
the end of the day the same thing will happen.  Users will complain  
that they can't work with MapServer-based WMS servers and that will  
push people to use something other than MapServer to publish to WMS.

Paul

On 16-Oct-07, at 9:34 AM, Steve Lime wrote:

> Bart: In principle I agree with you.
>
> From a practical point point of view I think it's silly not to work  
> with the largest
> WMS clients out there without additional configuration on the users  
> part. I wasn't
> aware of the ArcMap issue but would advocate supporting that  
> variation too. It's
> not like we're talking about some minor client, I mean, it's Google  
> Earth and ArcGIS.
>
> Fine, we should let them know they are not compliant (good luck),  
> but making it
> hard for the users of those packages doesn't help. They are  
> unlikely to have
> read the WMS spec and will blame the service provider more often  
> than the
> client vendor. These are folks (on the ArcGIS side especially) that  
> we really want
> to have a positive experience with open source and open standards.
>
> I need to go back to the documents Tom references but at face value  
> I'd prefer to
> see MapServer work seamlessly with *major* clients if at all possible.
>
> Steve
>
>>>> Bart van den Eijnden <[hidden email]> 10/14/07 3:22 PM >>>
> I tend to disagree. As a person having worked a lot with standards,  
> I think
> all vendors implementing a standard should comply with the contract  
> lay down
> in the standard.
>
> Remember ESRI's ArcMap up until 9.1 did not send the required  
> parameter
> QUERY_LAYERS in a GetFeatureInfo request. I did not hear anybody on  
> this
> list advocate that Mapserver should be made permissive and assume
> QUERY_LAYERS equals LAYERS. If you would go this path then the end  
> is near.
> Though it would have solved a long-standing irritating/frustrating  
> issue
> between Mapserver WMS and ESRI's ArcMap (and there are still a lot  
> of 9.0/9.1
> ArcMap's out there).
>
> Also, imagine falling back on the MAP file's width and height if not
> specified, I could write a simple WMS javascript client and forget  
> the width
> and height parameters in the url, the WMS client would write out <img
> src="..." width="650" height="450"> and the browser would totally  
> distort
> the image if the MAP file says something else then SIZE 650 450.
>
> It just shows which clients are not correctly implementing a spec, and
> frankly, the sooner the better. Go and bother the GE people and say  
> they are
> missing a required parameter.
>
> Personally I can not think of a reason why styles is required but  
> has a
> default value, but maybe the people who wrote the WMS spec had a  
> perfectly
> good reason for it. But if you do not agree it is a required  
> parameter, go
> to the OGC and debate why styles should not be a required  
> parameter ...
>
> Best regards,
> Bart
>
> On 10/14/07, Howard Butler <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2007, at 5:26 PM, Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Lime wrote:
>>>> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and
>>>> requiring the
>>>> styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth which doesn't seem
>>>> to send
>>>> that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS servers a bit
>>>> useless. Or am
>>>> I missing something with?
>>>
>>> Steve,
>>>
>>> I haven't run into this myself, but I have heard problems on IRC.
>>>
>>> I personally think it is wrong headed for us to require the styles
>>> parameter.  If we want to have a "pendantic" mode that requires it
>>> that
>>> would be find, but I don't see why we should require it by default
>>> regardless of what the standard might say.
>>>
>>> I would suggest we be permissive in what we require.
>>>
>>> I think this is something that ought to be "fixed" in 5.0.1.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.  The benefit of enforcing this is negligible.  Same for
>> width and height too, frankly.  Do the CITE tests require these?
>>
>> I would like to go back to being more lax about these, especially
>> when we can get reasonable defaults from the map file for width/
>> height and when styles= infers absolutely nothing to anyone.
>>
>> Howard
>>

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Paul Spencer                          [hidden email]    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|Chief Technology Officer                                         |
|DM Solutions Group Inc                http://www.dmsolutions.ca/ |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Frank Warmerdam
In reply to this post by Frank Warmerdam
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
> I will write a tiny RFC on this issue.


Folks,

Following up on this, the RFC is at:

   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-35

I would appreciate comment for a day or two and then I will call for a vote.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

John Cole X
In reply to this post by Steve Lime
Is there a way to get a MS4 wms layer to send the empty STYLES parameter?  I didn't see a tag to do this in the documentation.

It would be very nice for MS4 to be able to use MS5 WMS servers :-)

Thanks,

John

Steve Lime wrote
I got it working, same way as you did,  but I wouldn't expect a casual user to figure that out...

Steve

>>> On 10/12/2007 at 1:46 AM, in message
<d2b988930710112346t4b037d24n53a824e15fff7a40@mail.gmail.com>, thomas bonfort
<thomas.bonfort@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> I don't know if you got it working or not, but here's how I did:
> - in the refresh tab of the GE layer, I enter '
> http://localhost/~tom/cgi-bin/mapserv?STYLES=&map=/gro/jsigmaps/spdc.map' in
> the wms window
> - once i've selected the layers i want, i then tweak the url of the ge layer
> and switch format=image/png to format=myaggoutputformat , as the upscaling
> by GE of the gd rendered image is rather ugly
>
> tb
>
> On 10/11/07, Steve Lime <Steve.Lime@dnr.state.mn.us> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all: Is anyone else running into problems with clients and requiring
>> the styles parameter? I'm putzing with Google Earth
>> which doesn't seem to send that parameter which makes using 5.0-based WMS
>> servers a bit useless. Or am I missing something
>> with?
>>
>> Steve
>>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Frank Warmerdam
John Cole wrote:
> Is there a way to get a MS4 wms layer to send the empty STYLES parameter?  I
> didn't see a tag to do this in the documentation.
>
> It would be very nice for MS4 to be able to use MS5 WMS servers :-)

John,

As far as I know, you can include such parameters in the base url you
put in the layer. That is hardcode in &STYLES= as part of the url.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up   | Frank Warmerdam, [hidden email]
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush    | President OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Jeff McKenna-2
Frank is correct, here's an example:

LAYER
   ...
   CONNECTION "http://www.myfavorite/arcims?STYLES="
   CONNECTIONTYPE WMS
   ...
END




Frank Warmerdam wrote:

> John Cole wrote:
>> Is there a way to get a MS4 wms layer to send the empty STYLES
>> parameter?  I
>> didn't see a tag to do this in the documentation.
>>
>> It would be very nice for MS4 to be able to use MS5 WMS servers :-)
>
> John,
>
> As far as I know, you can include such parameters in the base url you
> put in the layer. That is hardcode in &STYLES= as part of the url.
>
> Best regards,


--
Jeff McKenna
DM Solutions Group Inc.
http://www.dmsolutions.ca
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: MapServer 5.0 WMS, requiring styles...

Daniel Morissette
In reply to this post by Frank Warmerdam
Frank Warmerdam wrote:
>
> Following up on this, the RFC is at:
>
>   http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/development/rfc/ms-rfc-35
>
> I would appreciate comment for a day or two and then I will call for a
> vote.
>

I understand the STYLES issue is real and needs to be addressed, but I
don't like where this is going.

The RFC is encouraging developers and users to add a bunch of permissive
exceptions in 5.1 and future releases that may not really be needed to
achieve interoperability. This would just result in bloating the code
and making it more complex and harder to test. BBOX and SIZE may have
some defaults in the mapfile, but a GetMap request without them makes
little sense so I would be against making them optional again (even if I
used to use GetMap without them a lot myself when testing mapfiles in
the past). OTOH, the STYLES option has a logical default stated in the
spec (STYLES=<empty>) and I think we all agree that it would have made
sense for STYLES to be optional in the spec in the first place.

I'd be more in favor of calling the options "pedantic" (with its
negative connotation) and "permissive", with permissive being the
default, and for the time being stating in the RFC that STYLES is the
only parameter that changes behavior in permissive mode... and that
adding more exceptions in the permissive mode should not be taken
lightly as this encourages misuse of the specs and bloats the code with
unnecessary exceptions.

With respect to scanning the WARNINGS in capabilities. At least in the
case of WMS, MapServer should already be producing suitable defaults in
addition to the warnings (making the response compliant anyway). If it
is not possible to produce a suitable default then an exception is
already issued, so there should be nothing to do on that front, unless
WFS or WCS were implemented differently.

Finally, in case anyone is worried about that, making STYLES optional
will not prevent us from getting compliance certification since the CITE
tests do not check whether a server enforces the requirement for the
STYLES parameter. That could be why so many servers out there never
implemented the requirement for STYLES and so many clients were able to
get away without it.

Daniel
--
Daniel Morissette
http://www.mapgears.com/
12