Christoph Baudson (WhereGroup)
christoph.baudson at wheregroup.com
Fri Nov 30 08:42:53 EST 2007
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.
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
> 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>:
>> 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??
>>> 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.
>>> - lines 513 + 549
>>> - 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
W h e r e G r o u p GmbH & Co. KG
Fon: +49 (0)228 / 90 90 38 - 17
Fax: +49 (0)228 / 90 90 38 - 11
olaf.knopp at wheregroup.com
Amtsgericht Bonn, HRA 6788
WhereGroup Verwaltungs GmbH
Arnulf Christl, Olaf Knopp, Peter Stamm
More information about the Mapbender_dev