I have been making a serious (relatively? :) attempt at understanding what is to be done regarding Protocol.WFS and related classes. I looked at it from the angle in which it would be useful for me in the case I described before.
* the standard WFS-T * Fixed and Save (and perhaps SaveGreedy) strategy From I can gather none of these are far from complete, but what I'm missing is option to filter the input in Fixed strategy. I noticed that the trunk version of BBOX strategy looks for additional filters in the layer and while it might be a good place put the additional filter I can't see any indication that Layer actually is supposed to support such a property. If it should it should be documented and used by fixed strategy also? I would like to to implement this before beeing able to do serious testing. I nice thing is that I could test stuff directly in a real world case where I'm using (successfully) the clumsy old Layer.WFS way with a temp layer. But before that I would like to confirm that I got the right idea... A question on the side... why are some methods declared "JSONy" i.e 'read' instead of read? /Björn On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Tim Schaub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey- > > Björn Harrtell wrote: > > Hi devs, > > > > I'm coding an application that uses OL vector editing and WFS > > transactions quite heavily. > > > > I use a temporary OpenLayers.Layer.Vector for editing, moving stuff to a > > OpenLayers.Layer.WFS as the user makes edits. This is a bit clumsy and > > complicated but works. The reason why I'm doing this is because > > OpenLayers.Layer.WFS only supports GET and is also loading features on > > demand (hmm is this correct?) which doesn't fit my needs. Note that I do > > not add the OpenLayers.Layer.WFS to a map, I only use create/commit the > > WFS transactions. > > > > I would like to use something like a static/manually triggered WFS > > (supporting POST and filtering) source to an OpenLayers.Layer.Vector > > that syncs changes to the WFS source which then can be commited > > programmatically. > > > > Is this sort of what OpenLayers.Protocol.WFS (which I think is beeing > > worked on?) is supposed to be used for? Or would it be sensible to make > > something more of OpenLayers.Layer.WFS instead? > > Yes, this is exactly the job for a WFS protocol. As Eric mentions, the > work is mostly in the vector-behavior sandbox. I'll make an effort to > update that and to get a patch ready for the trunk. > > My hope is to get the WFS protocol in the trunk before the end of next > week. Any help you can contribute would be appreciated. > > Watch the WFS protocol ticket [1] for updates from me, and leave any > comments/patches there that you put together. > > Tim > > [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1648 > > > > > > Either way, I'm interested in (trying) to help out if this seems like > > something you would like to support in OL, and can probably do it as a > > part of the current project as it would simplify things for me I think. > > > > Regards, > > > > Björn Harrtell > > GIS Consultant > > SWECO Position AB > > <http://www.swecogroup.com/en/Sweco-group/Services/Geographic-IT/> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > -- > Tim Schaub > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > Expert service straight from the developers. > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
