Hi Ivan,
I'm don't mean to give the impression I'm totally against such a patch
by any means, I'm just not sure ordering is even there as a concept in
WMS. All the spec says is that you have zero to many layer elements. It
doesn't say that the ordering of these is significant (respecting any
hierarchies they may be in).
And I'm not an expert on WMS, but my understanding was that the
hierarchical layers were just there for grouping and inheritance of
attributes (e.g. the Bounding box). I wasn't even aware that you should
be able to requests an ordered group of layers by requesting the topmost
layer of a hierarchy - and I can't see anywhere in the WMS where it says
you should be able to do this.
However I'm not denying that's these aren't nice/useful features - just
not sure they are part of the WMS standard or that layer order matters
(apart from the hierarchical relationships).
But being a bit more pragmatic, if capturing order is truly useful then
we should consider of course consider the patch. Maybe an alternative
approach though might be to capture absolute position like this:
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.1
2
2.1
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.2.1
etc.
So each and every layer would have a unique position attribute.
Cheers,
Dom
On 23/11/10 13:08, Ivan Mincik wrote:
On 11/22/2010 10:36 AM, Dominic Lowe wrote:
Marcel,
Many thanks - I have fixed the bug now.
On nested layers - it's tricky as we don't want to complicate the
OWSlib interface too much. Does the ordering matter as long as you
capture the parent/child relationships?
Currently there is similar thread in QGIS mailing list [1], which
describes need of ordering nested layers.
[1] - http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/2010-November/010440.html
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
