2010/11/24 Dominic Lowe <[email protected]>

> Marcel,
>
> Thanks - I obviously haven't read the spec closely enough! Selecting a
> group is a nice feature.
>
>
> > The biggest problem is setting constant name "unnamed_layer" for every
> > category layer, cause it will be also
> > used as key in WebMapService.contents dictionary and therefore multiple
> > layer categories will be always
> > replaced by the last one.
> >
>
> Yes, that's a problem and needs fixing asap.
>
>
> > Although order of the children layers in their category is not mentioned
> > and it may be questionable,
> > but we would appreciate it.
>
> Okay, I will plan to add that in too.
>
> By the way are you happy about the proposal for:
>
> >         1
> >         1.1
> >         1.2
> >         1.3
> etc.
>

 Yes I do, your proposal looks good to me

Also, I don't get much time to spend on OWSlib so if you are happy to
> contribute a patch for either of these then please do so and I'll merge them
> in.
>

 Okay, I will do it

Cheers,
> Dom
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 24/11/10 11:14, Marcel Dancak wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2010/11/23 Dominic Lowe <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     > So each and every layer would have a unique position attribute.
>>
>>    Which I should add, may change each time you hit the capabilities
>>    document as there is no requirement on the server to be consistent
>>    in the ordering.
>>
>>    (And sorry for all the typos in the last email!)
>>
>>    Dom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    On 23/11/10 14:02, Dominic Lowe wrote:
>>
>>        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
>>
>>
>> Hi Dominic,
>>
>> Yes, You are right about using nested layers for inheritance of
>> attributes. But in WMS specification
>> there are some notes about layer categories (groups). Take a look at
>> section about layer's properties,
>> especially the Name:
>>
>> 7.1.4.5.2  Name
>> If, and only if, a layer has a <Name>, then it is a map layer that can
>> be requested by using
>> that Name in the LAYERS parameter of a GetMap request. If the layer has
>> a Title but no
>> Name, then that layer is only a category title for all the layers nested
>> within. A Map
>> Server that advertises a Layer containing a Name element shall be able
>> to accept that
>> Name as the value of LAYERS argument in a GetMap request and return the
>> corresponding map. A Client shall not attempt to request a layer that
>> has a Title but no
>> Name.
>> A server shall throw an exception (code="LayerNotDefined") if an invalid
>> layer is
>> requested.
>> A containing category itself may include a Name by which all of the
>> nested layers can be
>> requested at once. For example, a parent layer "Roads" may have children
>> "Interstates"
>> and "State Highways" and allow the user to request either child
>> individually or both
>> together.
>> The Name is not inherited by child Layers.
>>
>> [
>> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=1081&version=1&format=pdf
>> <
>> http://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=1081&version=1&format=pdf
>> >
>> (page 37/25)]
>>
>>
>> So the specification allow using nested layers in two ways - for
>> inheritance properties and for creating
>> categories of layers. And it seems that current version of OWSLib
>> doesn't support second use case very well.
>> The biggest problem is setting constant name "unnamed_layer" for every
>> category layer, cause it will be also
>> used as key in WebMapService.contents dictionary and therefore multiple
>> layer categories will be always
>> replaced by the last one.
>>
>> Although order of the children layers in their category is not mentioned
>> and it may be questionable,
>> but we would appreciate it.
>>
>>
>> Marcel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community
>
_______________________________________________
Community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Reply via email to