On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 03:19:27PM +0100, bart...@osgis.nl wrote: > Ah right, I missed that one. > > So this is something which can be changed at OL 3.0?
Yes; I dont' know enough to say whether it should be or not, but it would be a candidate for that. One reason that I feel the WFS-T name is more accurate, looking at the Format.WFS code, is that the Format.WFS calls out to FOrmat.GML for everything *except* creating transactions: reading is all done by GML. I don't know enough to say whether this is correct or not, but that's hy the *existing* format.wfs would probably be better as format.wfs-t. > Best regards, > Bart > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:08:51AM +0100, bart...@osgis.nl wrote: > >> Hi list, > >> > >> maybe it's a bit too late to startup this discussion, but anyway, I > >> think > >> the name Format.WFST is a bit misleading, and I would prefer Format.WFS. > >> It's misleading since it implies only transactional stuff, but > >> Format.WFST > >> also writes out stuff for non-transactional requests, such as > >> GetFeature. > >> > >> If you look at the OGC spec, you'll see that the term WFS-T (or WFST) is > >> not even an official name. The WFS spec has basic (read-only) and > >> transactional parts and that is exactly what this format implements, so > >> Format.WFS is more logical to me. > >> > >> What do others think? > > > > We already have an existing Format.WFS that we need to maintain for > > backwards compatibility. > > > >> Best regards, > >> Bart > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Dev mailing list > >> Dev@openlayers.org > >> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > -- > > Christopher Schmidt > > MetaCarta > > > > -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
