Hello- Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote: > HI, > > We work with WFS on a daily basis, but not with transactional. Does that > patch apply to us as well? If so, we would be happy to help. >
Yes, the WFS protocol is of use to anyone using WFS. You should be able to confirm that a filter added to a layer with the WFS protocol will be serialized in the body of a GetFeature POST (ack). Thanks for any help in reviewing/testing. Tim > Julien > > Tim Schaub wrote: >> Hey- >> >> So, tests are now passing with the WFS protocol. I think this is >> pretty close and would appreciate any help creating tests, trying it >> out, etc. >> >> The patch [1] includes a very basic Save strategy. This is a manual >> save strategy (requires that you call save). It can be used as the >> basis for auto or greedy save strategies, but I think we should keep >> it simple for this patch. >> >> Thanks for any assistance testing/reviewing. >> >> Tim >> >> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1648 >> >> Tim Schaub wrote: >> >>> Hey- >>> >>> I put up a patch that represents progress towards a working WFS >>> protocol. >>> >>> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1648 >>> >>> I'll work on it a bit more tomorrow. Please feel free to pick it up >>> and push it forward (anyone). The wfs-protocol-transactions.html >>> example is a good place to start with a debugger. In the end, this >>> example will do inserts, updates, and deletes (with a commit from the >>> save button). >>> >>> Tim >>> >>> Björn Harrtell wrote: >>> >>>> 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] >>>> <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
