Hi, after yesterdays IRC meeting mod_treefolder clearification, I checked the current mb2.4.3 treeGDE:
How Gui-WMS-Settings is intended to work: - if the status of a layer is 'off' the layer should not be present in the client at all - if a layer is not selectable and not selectable for featureInfo: the layer should be ignored by the foldertree This works as expected. I observed the following problems when playing around with the gui-wms-configuration: - If all layer of a wms are set to sel=no and queryable=no, then you get an error in the tree. The layers do not appear in the tree as intended, but layer 0 is there although also set to sel=no and queryable=no. - unfortunately the same is true, when one or more layers have sel_default=true. That's all i could find. >From my point of view, it would make more sense, to have on/off decide whether a layer is in the client and then also in the tree. The magic of "sel=no and querable=no, the layer disapears" is not documented, not really necessary (it can be achieved by on/off=0) and prevents us from displaying layers in the tree for pure information (look, we have this layer but you can neither enable/disable visibility nor enable/disable query at the moment)*. Additionally this would take the column headers literally: on/off: layers is either present or not sel(ectable): layer is selectable or not (disable checkbox) sel_default: the layer is displayed by default (checks the visibility checkbox, whatever the status of the checkbox is) query(able): layer is queryable or not (disable checkbox) If switch_wms is set for this tree and layer 0 has sel=0, then the wms checkbox should be disabled as well. Cheers, Michael * I might be biased, because i just needed this functionality, that's why i looked into mod_treefolder... ;-) 2007/11/30, Christoph Baudson (WhereGroup) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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 > -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] in medias res Gesellschaft für Informationstechnologie mbH In den Weihermatten 66 79108 Freiburg Tel +49 (0)761 556959-5 Fax +49 (0)761 556959-6 http://www.webgis.de / http://www.zopecms.de ----------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Mapbender_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapbender_dev
