On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 10:27:48PM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote: > On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 1:20 AM, Christopher Schmidt > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, with this, I'm convinced that: > > * In 2.7, Rule.Logical won't exist (or won't do what it does now). > > * In 2.6, We can drop API* from it > > Chris, if I understand you (and this whole discussion) correctly, you > would keep API* for the Rule subclasses except for Rule.Logical. > Rule.Logical must be treated differently because later - when we > introduce the Filter classes - we won't be able to make it a > convenience method. Does my understanding sound correct?
No, I think that I'm convinced that convenience of any Rule subclasses is likely overruled by the confusion they would cause: I'm not in favor of keeping the Rule subclasses as API Classes at all, I just used Rule.Logical as an example. > Now my position on this: if we're to drop API* from Rule.Logical, I > would drop it from all the Rule subclasses. Because I think it is hard > to guess upfront what will be good convenience methods. Agreed. > Is it such a big deal to drop API* from Rule.*? People with sufficient > knowledge on the style/rule framework would be able to use the Rule > subclasses with 2.6 and modify their application code to make it work > with 2.7. I don't like this, but I've grudgingly admitted that I am willing to accept it, yes. I don't feel comfortable with it, though. > The other people can still benefit from the style/rule > framework through SLD. I'll take your word for it, since I don't know how to use SLD :) Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
