Hey- Eric Lemoine wrote: > 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,
Makes sense to me Eric. Now that we've got filters, let's use them. Tim > > Thanks guys, > > -- > Eric > > !DSPAM:4033,4841210b237731336712104! > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
