On 24.04.2013 11:41, Alexis "Agemen" wrote: > Le 24/04/2013 11:10, edgar.sol...@web.de a écrit : >> On 23.04.2013 22:52, Michaël Michaud wrote: >>>> I've changed some things related to the default wms version we find : I >>>>> really prefer to keep the highest one if nothing is given from the user. >>>>> I've made some changes in WMService so that it can work. I've tried to >>>>> retrieve the getCapabilities document only once for performance purpose. >>>>> I've split the initialize method in three, consequently. Another minor >>>>> change is that I add a "?" at the end of the input URL in order to be >>>>> more resistant to user input :-) >>> Nice improvement, I'll try to synchronize OpenJUMP. >> he stumbled over the bounding box axis issue inbetween, so i doubt he will >> stick to the highest version first decision. the question mark was also >> reverted afaiu as the user might give a query string with the url. >> >> so far i see no need for both changes. >> >> ..ede >> > hi, > > The query string can basically be kept by doing a more accurate test. > For instance by searching for it in the input URL. If it is there, we > can then check for a final & and then go on. I've done that thanks to > Jukka comment on this, and it seems to be working. (most of the work as > been made on the OrbisGIS side, no change in the WMS client unless the > said test).
what exactly is your rationale to add the "?". how does it make anything more robust? what do you need the questioonmark for, if there is no query string? > Considering the work made by Michaël, the axis order problem seems to be > less painful... I've made some tests and it seems to be working. That's as long as the crs list is up to date and not faulty somewhere. nobody can guarantee that. a proper solution would need a periodically updated EPSG database. > said, we will probably stick with the highest version rather than > defaulting to 1.1.1. Version 1.3.0 is the current standard for WMS. I did you read the link i sent around? http://dmorissette.blogspot.de/2012/12/dont-upgrade-to-wms-130-unless-you.html > really prefer the idea to let the user force the requested version. > Moreover, there is no guarantee WMS 1.1.1 is implemented on the > requested server. that's why you'd probe and choose the next best option, according to your list and probe again >That means that if the version is not explicitly > stated in the getCapabilities request (i.e. not explicitly given by the > user/caller), the client will try to connect to a WMS 1.3.0 *only* > server with the 1.1.1 protocol. I don't know how this could work. it obviously wont ;) >I > think it's safer to query the server before. > totally, but if you occur a server supporting both 1.3 and 1.1 , 1.1 is the better way to go as explained in the link above. ..ede ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Try New Relic Now & We'll Send You this Cool Shirt New Relic is the only SaaS-based application performance monitoring service that delivers powerful full stack analytics. Optimize and monitor your browser, app, & servers with just a few lines of code. Try New Relic and get this awesome Nerd Life shirt! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic_d2d_apr _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
