Andrea Aime wrote:
> Gabriel Roldan ha scritto:
>> Hi Andrea,
>>
>> 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.
>> I would prefer to favor composition over inheritance at least it _is_ a 
>> layer info and not just a group of layer infos? not the best timing for 
>> me to look deeper into it though, sorry
> 
> Atm we have composition only. But it does not help if you're
> trying to treat the two thing things as one (a displayable layer).
> 
>>> Failing that, it would be still nice if LayerGroupInfo
>>> had at least:
>>> - a workspace that contains it
>> sure
> 
> Actually I'm getting a little confused here. LayerInfo does not
> have it either... I guess layers should be part of a Map instead,
> but that is not there either.
> Which basically means our WMS on trunk is broken,
> does not support multiple containers anymore (as the one on 1.7.x),
> will break if there are two layers attached to resources with
> the same name in different workspaces. :-( Oh boy...
Yes, this is an issue. One we are sort of working around by having the 
catalog recognize layer names of the form 
<workspaceName>:<resourceName>. But I agree, not ideal. Again this 
middle ground of not having the "Map" container, but trying to design 
with it in mind is haunting us.
> 
>>> - 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^?)
>>>
>> What about LayerGroupInfo.isEnabled() == true as long as at least one of 
>> its aggregated layerinfos is enabled? will this way allow for a 
>> layerGroupInfo to still be visualized while hiding the non enabled layers?
> 
> Nope, it's guaranteed to blow on your face atm.
> I also usually prefer fail fast approach instead of returning
> something else, and letting the user figure out why some parts
> of the map are missing.
> At least the admin should be able to configure this behaviour
> (fail fast vs best effort).
> 
> 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

Reply via email to