the OpenLayers map returned has all the layers combined into one BaseMap.
why not just make the first layer requested be the basemap, and all the
others be overlays that you can toggle? this way you get a fully functional
GIS/Overlay-toggling system right out of the box.
The problem is when people want to start getting fancy with SLDs and Filters. But it sounds like it might be nice to have an option to let users request each layer as its own, perhaps make it easier on us and just ignore SLDs or filters when one does so.
I could see another way of doing it too - you could do layers=baselayers&overlayers=your,layer,list. And then for the overlays we would only accept the default styles for them. This would also be nice since we wouldn't just assume the first one's the base, people could specify which one they wanted as the base. Thoughts Andrea?
Chris
mfrumin wrote:
BTW this feature is awesome, thanks so much for rocking it.
but I think it could be even better -- when you specify multiple layers, eg:
the OpenLayers map returned has all the layers combined into one BaseMap. why not just make the first layer requested be the basemap, and all the
others be overlays that you can toggle? this way you get a fully functional
GIS/Overlay-toggling system right out of the box.
The problem is when people want to start getting fancy with SLDs and Filters. But it sounds like it might be nice to have an option to let users request each layer as its own, perhaps make it easier on us and just ignore SLDs or filters when one does so.
I could see another way of doing it too - you could do layers=baselayers&overlayers=your,layer,list. And then for the overlays we would only accept the default styles for them. This would also be nice since we wouldn't just assume the first one's the base, people could specify which one they wanted as the base. Thoughts Andrea?
Hmmm... two days later we would have users aking why they cannot
specify styles for overlays.
One thing we could do is that, instead of transparently cascading whatever options we get like now, we do declare what options we do
cascade, and everything else gets ingnored, but we'll have to perform
some soft parsing anyways to split multivalues elements into single
value ones (with ad hoc code, CQL filters have a full parser, OGC ones
just a () separator, and so on).
We prepare two list of parameters, the general ones, that gets
cascaded as is, and the list based ones, that get parsed somewhat
(they are supposed to be lists of strings, or in the case of filters,
we can just inspect what was the original format of the filter accessing
the original parameter list).
It would require some hours work to make it work properly, but I guess
I have to admit two people asking for the same thing in two days is a
sign we cannot ignore.
The problem is when people want to start getting fancy with SLDs and Filters. But it sounds like it might be nice to have an option to let users request each layer as its own, perhaps make it easier on us and just ignore SLDs or filters when one does so.
I haven't completely followed this discussion, so please pardon any inappropriate comments.
This application/openlayers format idea strikes me as a cool but way to fragile one server/one client solution (ka-Map anyone). I think everything you're talking about here would be better handled by WMC. A more flexible solution would be to get WMC and SLD support in OpenLayers - then everybody can talk in standards.
I'm sure that serving up JavaScript for OpenLayers is providing a handy and immediate fix - however, if there is going to be a serious development effort to keep this going, I'd suggest pushing some of the work to OpenLayers to get WMC and SLD support (which I'd be happy to implement :).
The problem is when people want to start getting fancy with SLDs and Filters. But it sounds like it might be nice to have an option to let users request each layer as its own, perhaps make it easier on us and just ignore SLDs or filters when one does so.
I haven't completely followed this discussion, so please pardon any inappropriate comments.
This application/openlayers format idea strikes me as a cool but way to fragile one server/one client solution (ka-Map anyone). I think everything you're talking about here would be better handled by WMC. A more flexible solution would be to get WMC and SLD support in OpenLayers - then everybody can talk in standards.
I'm sure that serving up JavaScript for OpenLayers is providing a handy and immediate fix - however, if there is going to be a serious development effort to keep this going, I'd suggest pushing some of the work to OpenLayers to get WMC and SLD support (which I'd be happy to implement :).
Yeah, I agree we should stop piling extra features on to this. The problem is that there's no other easy way to auto-generate an openlayers map from a few parameters. You always have to write some javascript. The immediate solution for the problem at hand isn't so much WMC and SLD, it's just a tool to make an OL map from some params.
Of course, I do very much want to work on the 'right' solution, get WMC and SLD support in OL, and then have a web tool in GeoServer (or pure OL) that creates a WMC and makes an OL map from that.
Chris
Tim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-users mailing list
Geoserver-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-users