This was indeed something I bounced back and forth on when redesigning the interfaces. And in the end it did not seem to make sense to have LayerGroup be a "layer", as many of the properties do not apply. As far as I know this is just an issue when trying to iterate everything "renderable" correct?
As for the workspace and enabled flag, yes that makes sense. Although I think Map would be the more appropriate container since we are dealing with publishing, but of course we are at an annoying middleground where the entity does not yet exist. Besides having a name, a container (map or workspace), and an enabled/disabled flag is there any other common properties they would share? Andrea Aime wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying to setup a new preview page and I'm getting > some nastiness trying to stick the two things, layers > and layers groups, in the same table. > > Generally speaking it would be nice if Layer and LayerInfo > shared some superclass. > Failing that, it would be still nice if LayerGroupInfo > had at least: > - a workspace that contains it > - a isEnabled that just states whether all the layers in > the group are enabled or not (e.g., will the layer > group display or not^?) > > Opinions? In the meantime I'm working around the above > limitations by creating a wrapping class only for the > map preview purposes > > Cheers > Andrea > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
