One other thought... Tim Schaub wrote: >> Proxying is a non-issue for me right now, but I wonder if OL really >> needs to know that it is making a proxy request. Couldn't it be transparent?
If you have OpenLayers.ProxyHost set, you get "transparent" proxying. If you want to issue a request via a different proxy, you can set the proxy config property. Don't know if this is more or less confusing. Perhaps it will never happen (that a user would want to use something other than OpenLayers.ProxyHost as a proxy), but it's easy to support so I thought I'd add it in. Tim > > Right now, a user can specify their proxy independent of their layer URL > (OpenLayers.ProxyHost and layer.url). > > This makes it handy to share the configuration for a WFS layer (or any > other with data requested via XMLHttpRequest) in an example. The path > to a user's proxy may differ, but the URL for the layer remains the same. > > It also makes it easy to demo an application in one place and put it in > to production in another - changing your OpenLayers.ProxyHost but not > changing the layer config (or moving any data around). > >> Can we shout RFC 2616 at developers and have methods like Request.GET, >> POST, PUT, DELETE? >> > > Sounds good to me - particularly because "delete" is a reserved word in > JavaScript, and some browsers complain about it being used as an > identifier (I think "get" may be reserved in the future as well). > > http://trac.openlayers.org/changeset/6366 > > I like that better. > > Thanks for the feedback. > Tim > >> Cheers, >> Sean >> _______________________________________________ >> Dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > !DSPAM:4033,47c35379270571961014482! > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
