[Mapbender-dev] mod_treefolder2

[Michael Schulz]

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) <christoph.baudson at wheregroup.com>:
> 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 <nimix at gmx.net>:
> >
> >> 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
> >> Mapbender_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> >> 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
> olaf.knopp at wheregroup.com
> http://www.wheregroup.com
> Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6788
> _______________________________________
>
> Komplementärin:
> WhereGroup Verwaltungs GmbH
> vertreten durch:
> Arnulf Christl, Olaf Knopp, Peter Stamm
> _______________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mapbender_dev mailing list
> Mapbender_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapbender_dev
>


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schulz
mschulz at webgis.de

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
-----------------------------------------------------------