On 12/15/05, Bob Basques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still thinking about the statement regarding maintaining the current > Map Files along with a new XMLish version. Couldn't the two be kept up > side by side for some amount of time with a sunset date being > artificially set for the older version, once (most) everyone is happy > with the new order of things? There may even be ways of making the > conversion fairly easy between the two, or even have two seperate > MapServer interpreters that are options at compile time, or, still > thinking about it as you can tell . . . . . I don't know the innards of > MapServer well enough to be an authority on any of these suggestions, > but someone else can tell me what would and wouldn't work.
Bob, I find it hard to imagine not supporting both versions of the mapfile, at least for a few versions. It might be that some new features are only accessable in the XML format though. I suspect it would be hard to get the developers to keep both in sync for very long. I don't see any reason one binary couldn't have the support for both formats built in. PS. regarding Flavio's point about not wanting to edit XML mapfiles. I do edit xml config files (and .vrt/.ovf and so forth) on a fairly frequent basis with a text editor, and I don't find it that bad. But there does tend to be some extra fluff that would be a bother if you are always doing it by hand. Best regards, -- ---------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, [EMAIL PROTECTED] light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent
