Andrea Aime wrote:
> Justin Deoliveira ha scritto:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> Yes, I agree that the situation now is not ideal. Currently 
>> ResourceInfo has:
>>
>> getName() -> its published name (what we call alias today)
>> getNativeName() -> the physical name
>> getAlias() -> collection of "aliases"
> 
> Mind, alias has never been a collection. It was implemented
> as a way to rename a feature type, not to provide a second
> name for it. But the name it was give created (and is still
> creating) confusion.
Yeah... I think alias is not the best name for the function it provides, 
and this is something i tried to fix when i revamped the model. If we do 
not have any useful function for an actual "alias", that is a secondary 
name for a layer, then i suggest we remove it to prevent further confusion.
> 
>> I believe we achieve aliasing now with getName() and getNativeName().
> 
> Oh, do we? This is new to me. But then again, I don't have good
> grips on how the catalog works right now. So the resource pool
> applies a retyping data store using getName()?
Yup, RP checks if getName() != getNativeName() and if true applies the 
retyping data store.
> 
>> I agree that Layer.getName() is the best long term solution for a 
>> published name. But as you point out this requires that we have 
>> services go through Layers, not resources -> ie, the 
>> resource/publishing split we oh so long for. Part of that is 
>> introducing maps so that layer names can be qualified. So the map will 
>> become the "namespace" for the layer name.
> 
> It would be the namespace prefix that we use today. But not a real
> WFS namespace. So, will we associate a real namespace URI to maps
> as well? Or we take the native one coming from the resource?
> (assuming there is no community schema mapping)
I am not sure i follow. The original question is how do we make layer 
names unique? My answer was that once layers are grouped by map, the 
name of the map becomes the qualifier. Exactly how we look up stores 
today, qualifying them with a workspace. Am i making any sense?

In terms of "namespaces", I think a namespace should just refer to an 
attribute of a Layer. Not a grouping mechanism. Workspaces and maps are 
the grouping mechanisms. Sure a bunch of layers can have the same 
namespace... but i don't think they should be "grouped" by that 
namespace per se.
> 
> Cheers
> Andrea
> 
> 


-- 
Justin Deoliveira
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Enterprise support for open source geospatial.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Reply via email to