Below is the layer def.  I changed the colon after 'port' to a comma per
the comments in the vector data access doc.  This returned a different
error message:  

msDrawMap(): Image handling error. Failed to draw layer named 'testsde'.
msSDELayerOpen(): SDE error. SE_connection_create(): Entry for SDE
instance not found in services file. (-102) 

The port number is correct.  I am running SDE 9.1 on Solaris.

  LAYER
    NAME testsde
    STATUS DEFAULT
    TYPE POINT
        CONNECTION "myserver.pca.state.mn.us,port,5152,sde,uuuuu,ppppp"
        CONNECTIONTYPE SDE
        #PROCESSING "QUERYORDER=ATTRIBUTE"
      DATA "WATER.WELLS,SHAPE,DEFAULT"
        TEMPLATE "selectcounty.html"
        FOOTER "selectcountyfoot.html"
    CLASS 
           COLOR 255 0 0
    END
  END

-----Original Message-----
From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Howard Butler
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 9:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] ArcSDE Version Error


MapServer is connecting to SDE just fine, but I think you have your  
DATA block specified incorrectly.  SE_version_get_info is a function  
queries SDE get the specific version of the layer you wish to connect  
to.  If you are using SDE in multiple-editor scenario, this is useful  
for showing where the states of specific version of the layers are.

What do your CONNECTION and LAYER blocks look like (minus sensitive  
info, of course)?

Howard

On Feb 14, 2007, at 8:54 AM, Fawcett, David wrote:

> I am trying to get a MapServer ArcSDE connection working.  When I hit 
> mapserv, I get the follwing errors: =20
>
> msDrawMap(): Image handling error. Failed to draw layer named
> 'testsde'.
> msSDELayerOpen(): SDE error. SE_version_get_info(): Version not found.
> (-126)=20
>
> I didn't do the compile myself.  Since I don't see any examples where 
> the version is set in the map file, I am guessing that this error is 
> showing up because the version was not properly set with the compile 
> option '--with-sde-version=3D90'. =20
>
> Can anyone confirm (or refute) this? =20
>
> Thanks,=20
>
> David.
>

Reply via email to