Hi. Regarding Protocol.HTTP maybe the naming isn't really appropriate since any OL network protocol is HTTP-based. Since Protocol.HTTP uses GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, Protocol.REST might be a better name. Regards. Eric
2008/6/25, Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:53:33PM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Christopher Schmidt >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > 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. >> >> The WFS layer is tied to the "WFS" protocol. > > More so than the HTTP protocol, I'll admit; but the entire reason for > the vector behavior work is just that the protocol stuff really isn't > well encapsulated, so we'll just put it this way: "The WFS layer is a > fscking mess" :) > >> > 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 :) >> >> Ok, but what will we do with the WFS and GML layers? Will we keep them >> with the same names and behaviors to maintain backward compatibility? > > I don't know exactly what we'll do: if we can change the underlying > implementation of these to just be simple wrappers around a vector layer > without changing API-supported behavior, that would be preferable: > otherwise, we may have to maintain the existing code. For example, the > WFS layer has support to render with Markers, something that the vector > behavior changes won't give us, so we can't really just dump the > Layer.WFS code that does that and depend on the vector behavior instead. > > Regards, > -- > Christopher Schmidt > MetaCarta > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/users
