Thanks Kevin.
I have updated https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-153 with
the table of responsibilities for each layer group mode.
We could not come up with any good alternate wording, please proceed.
--
Jody Garnett
On 3 January 2017 at 16:04, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 17-01-03 10:30 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > I agree both that "opaque container" is a bit ugly and potentially
> > confusing and that "basemap" is too specific. Maybe a "flat group"?
>
> Jody and I just talked this over and I withdraw "flat group". My new
> suggestion is "Restricted Single" which isn't great but is consistent
> with "single" meaning it does not show it's children while "trees" do.
> Jody likes "Container" which again avoids "tree" although I dislike that
> it is inconsistent with how "container" is used in "Container Tree"
> because a container tree is not a named layer.
>
> --
> Kevin Michael Smith
> <[email protected]>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
