[Geomoose-users] using WFS-T

[Eli Adam]

Hi Brent,


On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Brent Fraser <bfraser at geoanalytic.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>   Now that I've configured my Geomoose demo to do WFS-T, I need to think
> about how to use it in my old Geomoose v2.4  Ice Digitizing application.

Cool, good to hear that it is working.

>
>   That application grouped digitized polygons by "image_id" (representing
> the Landsat image used as a backdrop).  There are hundreds of images and
> thousands of polygons in the system and when the user selected an image,
> Geomoose passed the image_id to mapserver to do a substitution in the
> mapfile SQL so only those polygons related to that image were displayed (and
> available for edits etc).  That worked great.

Is filtering for visual purposes so that you can see what is going on?
 Or is filtering for performance and browser limits?  Did you try
solution 0 which is to do no filtering and see if it works?


>
> How do I do the same thing with Geomoose v2.8 for my app?  Some possible
> "solutions" (I like #3):
>
> 1.  Convert the old 2.4 vector editing system to a user extension and use it
> instead of WFS-T
>         - a lot of work, uses deprecated code, and no benefit to the
> Geomoose community
> or
>
> 2. Create a layer per image_id in the TingyOWS config.xml file and have
> Geomoose switch layer name when the user selects the image.
>     - as images get added to the system the config.xml file must be updated
> (could be automated, but clunky)
>     - each layer would point to a table in the database which would make the
> database ugly
> (hundreds of tables).  I might be able to use views instead of tables to
> make it slightly less ugly, but TinyOWS might not do inserts into a view.
> Dunno about that.
>     - could be some limitations on the number of layers in the config.xml
> file (or performance issues?).
>
> or
>
> 3.  Add functionality to Geomoose to accept attribute filters in the mapbook
> and pass the filters to the OpenLayers definition.
>     - adds complexity to the mapbook syntax (so more documentation, testing,
> maint., etc).
>     - the logic may be similar to the  mapbook's search/query mechanism of
> specifying input types of layer,template,fieldname,comparitor,value so maybe
> some of the code could be used.

This sounds like an option worth exploring and may have other general
applicaitons.

>
> or
>
> 4.  Other?

My ideas are sort of light on this one, hopefully others have further ideas.

Best regards, Eli

>
> Thanks for any input!
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Brent Fraser
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users