On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Tim Schaub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > Sounds like a decent solution. Though I think you intended to spell > "setProperty" as "setPropertyName" instead.
Good catch. I'll correct that. I'll use name "setProperty" everywhere. >http://trac.openlayers.org/browser/sandbox/camptocamp/unhcr/lib/OpenLayers/Protocol/WFS/v1_0_0.js#L275 > > I guess it's worth asking what other protocol will be serializing a filter > using the filter format? In my view, each protocol is responsible for translating/serializing the OpenLayers.Filter object it is passed into something its server-side counterpart can understand. For the example the MapFish protocol (based on the HTTP protocol) translates it into GET parameters. The OpenLayers.Filter class hierarchy serves as the common filter representation - every protocol must adapt this common representation to its specific representation. Hope that makes sense... > The bbox array is a handy representation of a bbox for anybody who is not > going to be writing an ogc:Filter element. I agree, but this is another representation of the BBOX filter. We already have Filter.Spatial for that so why adding another representation. Now, specific protocols can *also* accept specific filter representations. For example, the MapFish protocol read() method can also accept a filter as an object with key:value pairs representing the GET parameters. Looking forward to your opinion on this, Thanks guys, -- Eric _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
