Andrea Aime wrote: > Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: >> I agree that the terminology "map" is confusing. I like the >> terminology of "service" and "protocol" as it describes more >> accurately what the technical entities actually are, although the term >> service is quite tied to the idea of OGC services and I fear using it >> in this way would result in even more confusion. >> >> You did bring up the term "context" to replace "map" which I kind of >> liked as well. > > "Maps" are: > - a virtual server > - a publishing point > - a collection of layers > - a collection of OGC services > - a "nested" GeoServer? > - ... > > not sure if any of the above helps in finding a better name. But > I agree "map" is confusing and should be replaced. > How does ESRI call the equivalent concept they have in IMS?
Not sure, but I think they call what we call a workspace a folder, which is know is something we discussed. As for a replacement name for map... How do others feel about "context". It is suitably abstract so it more or less describes the concept ;), and is not tied to any preconceptions. > > Cheers > Andrea > -- Justin Deoliveira OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org Enterprise support for open source geospatial. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
