-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 87
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Minimum value for "limit" too restrictive (0 should be allowed) #251
Comments
I see, you are using limit=0 to mimic the resultType=hits behavior from WFS 2.0. Originally this was part of the Core, but we moved it out (#22) early in the process. Allowing limit=0 to achieve this could be an option. It wouldn't make it a requirement to support such a capability (it would be up to the implementing software) and at the same time we wouldn't need an extension to support the capability. |
This bring up an interesting point related to HEAD. What about defining a set of OGC headers that return information similar to what we used to be able to get with resultType=hits? |
Yes, using HEAD would be cleaner, but it clearly would be an extension. limit=0 is somewhat of a hack, but not a bad one. Maybe one way to do it would be to just allow that servers can state other "minimum" values for limit than 1 (including values>1, maybe someone has such a requirement, too), but do not mention/discuss limit=0. And for the proper approach work on a HEAD extension? |
SWG call 2019-08-12: Clemens to create a pull request (see previous comment). Close this issue and open a new one to work on a HEAD extension. |
The requirement (20) /req/core/fc-limit-definition combined with permission 5 in OGC 17-069r2 do not allow to make queries with "limit=0" to allow a client to count results without actually retrieving results (This is currently used by clients/servers implementing EO OpenSearch in a distributed context and related CEOS Best Practices). It requires that at least one result is requested/returned. Propose to relax this and either allow 0 or state in permission 5 that the value for "minimum" is also an example.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: