WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
Nope, I would say that is a much more appropriate place for it.
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
Currently the CSS style format is not truly recognized by geoserver and the extension is a hack with some rough edges. As long as you can modify the generated SLD by hand (or external tools such as OpenGeo Suite’s GeoExplorer) and have your changes blown away by the next edit made in CSS I think the CSS editing page should stay in the demo category.
On the other hand, if and when CSS is properly integrated I’d like to simply do away with the separate editor and use the same workflows for managing both types of style within GeoServer.
While I agree with David that the current integration leaves much to be desired I don’t see much harm in moving the menu item. If the intent of the current location is to warn that the module still has “rough edges” I don’t think the location in the menu really matters and perhaps something more explicit like a warning on the css page itself should be added.
Btw, a while back I started a branch dedicated to more deeply integrating the css module in the way David describes, but it still needs work. What is there is really just the building blocks of making styling language pluggable.
Currently the CSS style format is not truly recognized by geoserver and the extension is a hack with some rough edges. As long as you can modify the generated SLD by hand (or external tools such as OpenGeo Suite’s GeoExplorer) and have your changes blown away by the next edit made in CSS I think the CSS editing page should stay in the demo category.
On the other hand, if and when CSS is properly integrated I’d like to simply do away with the separate editor and use the same workflows for managing both types of style within GeoServer.
While I agree with David that the current integration leaves much to be desired I don’t see much harm in moving the menu item. If the intent of the current location is to warn that the module still has “rough edges” I don’t think the location in the menu really matters and perhaps something more explicit like a warning on the css page itself should be added.
Btw, a while back I started a branch dedicated to more deeply integrating the css module in the way David describes, but it still needs work. What is there is really just the building blocks of making styling language pluggable.
Currently the CSS style format is not truly recognized by geoserver and the extension is a hack with some rough edges. As long as you can modify the generated SLD by hand (or external tools such as OpenGeo Suite’s GeoExplorer) and have your changes blown away by the next edit made in CSS I think the CSS editing page should stay in the demo category.
On the other hand, if and when CSS is properly integrated I’d like to simply do away with the separate editor and use the same workflows for managing both types of style within GeoServer.
To alleviate some of the integration concerns would it be possible to put a check in the style editor and make it read-only if a css style is present. This would prevent the causal replacement of a css style.
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
I am sure we are well passed what Andrea had time to do as a quick fix.
As a short-term fix could we break out an extension for the styles listed. Core can link to the sld editor, the css module can link to the css editor. This would remove the need to have the CSS editor list as a separate page.
To alleviate some of the integration concerns would it be possible to put a check in the style editor and make it read-only if a css style is present. This would prevent the causal replacement of a css style.
WatchGuard Dimension instantly turns raw network data into actionable
security intelligence. It gives you real-time visual feedback on key
security issues and trends. Skip the complicated setup - simply import
a virtual appliance and go from zero to informed in seconds. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=123612991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Jody Garnett <jody.garnett@anonymised.com>wrote:
I am sure we are well passed what Andrea had time to do as a quick fix.
As a short-term fix could we break out an extension for the styles listed.
Core can link to the sld editor, the css module can link to the css editor.
This would remove the need to have the CSS editor list as a separate page.
It would still be a API change, we cannot do it while in feature freeze...
I'm going to drop this one, the discussion already used more time than
the change I was proposing would have