On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 01:54:42PM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote: > Although i find it weird to use a GML layer with a format different > than GML i agree that it's good to avoid code at the application > level. Thanks Andreas. Eric
As Andreas pointed out, this is a flaw in naming. This is simply for 'historical reasons' -- It was named that way early on, before I really knew what I was doing. (It was named, for example, before we had formats, back when it really *was* about GML.) The GML and WFS layers can essentially be thought of two different strategies: GML is a Layer which uses a "Fixed" strategy, and WFS is a Layer which uses a "BBOX" strategy. Both of them are tied to the HTTP Protocol. It's unfortunate that they're named this way, but that's one of the things that the vector behavior work is changing: once we've refactored things, we can start creating layers that actually make sense for their names :) So yeah, using another format with Layer.GML or Layer.WFS is totally expected and encouraged -- even though the names are pretty bad. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/users
