Hi Andreas, that makes sense, and was exactly what I was thinking as well this morning. Remove the versioned parser and have an unversioned parser. I'll make some changes today in the sandbox to reflect this.
Best regards, Bart > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> if Mapserver is using the version attribute for the XMLSchema version, >> that's a mistake, see: >> >> http://lists.opengeospatial.org/pipermail/wfs-dev/2008-December/000523.html >> > > That's interesting. Interesting because this does not seem to be part of > the WFS spec, and because it is different than with other OGC services. > And if it is true, we will definitely put no further effort into version > detection and get rid of Format.WFSDescribeFeatureType.v1_0 in favor of > having just one unversioned parser. > > Does this make sense? > > Regards, > Andreas. > >>> Andreas Hocevar wrote: >>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> With 4) I don't really agree, since 0.1 is a very arbitrary used >>>>> version >>>>> by Mapserver. Since it is the version of the application schema, it >>>>> should >>>>> not be used at all IMHO. I think the person calling the parser is >>>>> responsible for putting the version in the constructor, since he also >>>>> knew >>>>> the version when doing the DescribeFeatureType request (version is a >>>>> URL >>>>> parameter there). I've used this approach in the test cases. What do >>>>> you >>>>> think? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Good point. You are right that this 0.1 version is arbitrary, because >>>> XML Schema is currently at version 1.1 or something. For now, I really >>>> think you are right that parsing the version attribute is an >>>> inappropriate way to determine what we have to parse here. So yes, >>>> omitting the version detection seems ok for now. If we find WFS >>>> implementations out there that return a completely different schema, >>>> we >>>> will have to cope with this in a different way. >>>> >>>> >>> Wait. The "0.1" that Mapserver returns for the version is indeed the >>> version of the XML Schema. So in fact we should have a >>> Format.Schema.v0_1 and Format.Schema.v1_0 parser and mix this in for >>> the >>> WFSDescribeFeatureType parser. >>> >>> At least that is how it should be done. For now, your proposal does >>> definitely make sense, at least until we find some other use case where >>> we need to parse XML Schema. This can easily be refactored later >>> without >>> changing the API. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Andreas. >>> >>> -- >>> Andreas Hocevar >>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ >>> Expert service straight from the developers. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Andreas Hocevar > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ > Expert service straight from the developers. > > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
