Unable to send WMS request for multiple layers of same feature with different
filter
Key: GEOS-2131
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-2131
Project: GeoServer
So the OpenGeo team has been talking things over, and it looks like
we're going to back away from trying to get 2.0 out real soon, instead
focus our energy on documentation and demos and what not for foss4g.
And after foss4g we won't have guaranteed resources to put in to it, and
in light of Ro
StatusPage "release locks" is unimplementable, either remove the option or
implement releasing all in geotools LockingManager
-
Key: GEOS-2130
StatusPage does not updates the values
--
Key: GEOS-2129
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-2129
Project: GeoServer
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Wicket UI
Affects Versions: 2.0-alpha1
That's the point, if we want to release 2.0 asap that means it shall be over a
geotools release, and releasing gt-2.6 without funcionality changes makes no
sense, that would be a point release not a minor one (major.minor.point). If
it contains only bugfixes its a point release, isnt it?
So do
Chris Holmes ha scritto:
> I'm pretty sure they're risking being sued. I imagine that ERMapper /
> Leica hasn't been proactive about telling them to not bundle it, so
> they're just operating under the assumption that nothing has really
> changed.
>
> Though actually, I think we can do what Ma
I'm pretty sure they're risking being sued. I imagine that ERMapper /
Leica hasn't been proactive about telling them to not bundle it, so
they're just operating under the assumption that nothing has really
changed.
Though actually, I think we can do what MapGuide did - simple
instructions on
Hi,
I was looking into what to offer for the performance presentation
and noticed that both MapServer and MapGuide either come bundled
with ECW support (MS4W 2.2.8) or have simple instructions on how
to set that up (http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/FdoGdalNotes).
DeeGree download contains the pure j
Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
> Great, thanks Jody, your feedback as always is great. While I do think
> the UI requirement is a bit premature, its definitely on the list of
> things to look out for after we assert this process as successful. I am
> going to add a section to the proposal and res
