I'd say throw an exception. For lenient there's the reflector.

On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 10:08 +0100, Alessio Fabiani wrote:
> On my opinion we should just throw an exception since the parameter is
> required.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Ing. Alessio Fabiani
> Founder / CTO GeoSolutions S.A.S.
> 
> GeoSolutions S.A.S.
> Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
> 55054  Massarosa (LU)
> Italy
> 
> phone: (+39) 0584 96.23.13
> fax:     (+39) 0584 96.23.13
> mobile:(+39) 349 82.27.000
> 
> http://www.geo-solutions.it
> http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/alessiofabiani
> http://twitter.com/simogeo
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Andrea Aime
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>         Hi,
>         looking into an issue with GetFeatureInfo not returning any
>         feature
>         on a map that clearly had some
>         (http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOS-4252)
>         I discovered an hidden "easter egg" in the code: if a WMS
>         request misses
>         the _required_ parameter SRS GetMap blindly assumes EPSG:4326
>         whilst
>         GetFeatureInfo simply starts going bonkers.
>         
>         Now, the parameter is _required_, so I would just go and throw
>         an exception
>         there (and btw, surprised CITE tests do not check for that...
>         checked, there
>         is no "cite compliance" trick in the wms code).
>         
>         If we really really want to be lenient and keep on accepting
>         malformed requests,
>         we should then try to use the first layer srs, not just pick a
>         random
>         srs that may have
>         nothing to do with the data in the current request.
>         
>         However that makes for quite a hard to debug issues: it took
>         step by step code
>         debugging to find out why GetFeatureInfo was not even reaching
>         to the database
>         when clicking, in the preview, on a map that clearly had
>         features showing (at
>         that scale, GFI without the SRS was computing the wrong scale
>         and deciding
>         all the scale dependent rules were inactive).
>         That's why I'm more of leaning towards simply throwing an
>         exception.
>         
>         Opinions?
>         
>         Cheers
>         Andrea
>         
>         -----------------------------------------------------
>         Ing. Andrea Aime
>         Senior Software Engineer
>         
>         GeoSolutions S.A.S.
>         Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
>         55054  Massarosa (LU)
>         Italy
>         
>         phone: +39 0584962313
>         fax:     +39 0584962313
>         
>         http://www.geo-solutions.it
>         http://geo-solutions.blogspot.com/
>         http://www.linkedin.com/in/andreaaime
>         http://twitter.com/geowolf
>         
>         -----------------------------------------------------
>         
>         
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         _______________________________________________
>         Geoserver-devel mailing list
>         [email protected]
>         https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

-- 
Gabriel Roldan
[email protected]
Expert service straight from the developers


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Reply via email to