Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Thanks for taking these ideas to the email list for discussion - much easier to design up front. - Your goal was to have "more" "better" view parameters :) - To keep with the style of WMS it is good to use position (order) rather than a layer name - Encoding XML or JSON reduces readab

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Considering Andrea's feedback on using position rather than layer name: 130 characters 538008302,244060802,53800850522,44acv,rrp;1,0;0,7;22,1 Or json-lite: 85 chracters {mnsi:['538008302,244060802,538008505','22,44',],csvInput:[,,'acv,rrp;1,0;0,7;22,1']} Or json-quote: 95 {'mnsi':['538008302,

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

If XML is really not earning its keep switch to json or similar that preserves nesting: 110 {Layer1:{mnsi:'538008302,244060802,538008505'},Layer2:{mnsi:'22,44'},Layer3:{csvInput:'acv,rrp;1,0;0,7;22,1'}} Even adding quotes: 122 {'Layer1':{'mnsi':'538008302,244060802,538008505'},'Layer2':{'mnsi':

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

> > The XML most often cited downside is verbosity, and the above is already >> 250 chars. URLs have a practical size limit of 2000 chars >> , >> adding a few more params in there (or other request

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Following this technical profile for the new XML view params format and fixing the XML to comply the XML standard I am updating the new format usage query parameters example as: &viewParamsFormat=xml &viewParams=538008302,244060802,53800850522,44acv,rrp;1,0;0,7;22,1 XML tags/attributes definition

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Hi Andre and Nuno, Thanks a lot for your feedback. Indeed reducing the verbosity of the tag names will help a lot. Nuno's example format looks nice: 538008302,244060802,53800850522,44, acv,rrp;1,0;0,7;22,1 Also I agree positional layer parameters should be respected, in case of no parameters fo

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Hi Andrea, thank you for the feedback, find my replies below: On Mon, Jul 4, 2022 at 5:25 PM Andrea Aime < andrea.a...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Hi all, > I can understand the desire to use a more structured format rather than > fiddling with escape codes when dealing with > complex view pa

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Hi all, I can understand the desire to use a more structured format rather than fiddling with escape codes when dealing with complex view params. At the same time, there is a practical limit... let's look at content and size of your example: 538008302,244060802,53800850522,44acv,rrp;1,0;0, 7;22,1

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Hi Nuno, thanks a lot for your feedback, replying to your inputs: Proposed XML alternative format: >> The XML alternative format will include the following tags: >> - : defines a layer parameters, using the same layers order as >> the regular view parameters format. >> > > -1 here, I would recom

Re: [Geoserver-devel] XML alternative format for view parameters enhancement proposal

Hi Fernando, overall looks like a good addition, but I have a couple of comments, please see them below: On Fri, Jul 1, 2022 at 10:13 PM Fernando Mino < fernando.m...@geosolutionsgroup.com> wrote: > Dear community, > > This is an idea proposal to enhance GeoServer view parameters to allow an > XM