Marcel,

I've now added the patch you sent me (offline) for unnamed layers.

Much appreciated!

Dom

On 24/11/10 13:04, Marcel Dancak wrote:


2010/11/24 Dominic Lowe <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]>
        <mailto:[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>
        
<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] <mailto:[email protected]>
        http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community


    _______________________________________________
    Community mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[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