Your argumentation sounds reasonable.
Maybe we can discuss it at Monday's IRC meeting and reach a conclusion.
I will add it to the agenda.
Thank you
Christoph
Michael Schulz schrieb:
Hi Melchior,
that's what I did:
- read in the documentation, that "on/off" (gui_layer_status) decides
whether a layer is present in the tree, "sel" (gui_layer_selectable)
decides whether a layer is selectable by the user in the tree
- when looking at the original code of the second part of the patch
(line 537): the outer if checks whether gui_layer_selectable is 1, but
then inside it checks if gui_layer_selectable is != 1 (if so it adds
disabled, which is exactly what we want), but you only get there if
gui_layer_queryable is 1!? That means you only can set a layer
visibility checkbox disabled, when it is queryable.
I think, gui_layer_status should be checked first and only, because
this is the main decision whether a layer should appear in the tree.
Then if gui_layer_selectable is 0 the visibility checkbox is disabled
but present and even checked when sel_default is set to 1.
At the moment, with the patch applied, a layer that has sel=0 is
simply not present in the tree, which I think is not the intended
behaviour.
Additionally, in my reading of the functionality, if you set sel=0 on
layer 0 of a wms and have switch_wms set to true, then this wms
checkbox should also be disabled.
Cheers, Michael
2007/11/30, Melchior Moos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi,
I had a short look at it, the behavior of treefolder2 in trunk should be
like the old treefolder.php (line 605), but I'm not sure if that was the
correct way??
regards,
Melchior
Hi,
I know there is currently work done at improving mod_treefolder2, but
nevertheless, this might make it into 2.4.4.
I think there is a confusion in mod_treefolder2.php: To decide whether
a layer should be ignored in the tree, it currently checks for
gui_layer_selectable but should check against gui_layer_status.
trunk:
- lines 513 + 549
2.4.3:
- the check whether layer 0 has status=0 is not present (BTW: if this
is the case it should actually continue to the next wms not only to
the next layer, in my opinion)
- line 537
Any other thoughts on this?
Cheers, Michael
_______________________________________________
Mapbender_dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapbender_dev
--
_______________________________________
W h e r e G r o u p GmbH & Co. KG
Siemensstraße 8
53121 Bonn
Germany
Christoph Baudson
Anwendungsentwickler
Fon: +49 (0)228 / 90 90 38 - 17
Fax: +49 (0)228 / 90 90 38 - 11
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.wheregroup.com
Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6788
_______________________________________
Komplementärin:
WhereGroup Verwaltungs GmbH
vertreten durch:
Arnulf Christl, Olaf Knopp, Peter Stamm
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Mapbender_dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapbender_dev
