Vote on RFC 31?

[Steve Lime]

Yes, the current code supports access to classes by name. Names kinda suck though since they
are used for legends and can get kinda long. The array syntax is fine with me...

>>> On 6/20/2007 at 1:35 PM, in message <46797369.60806 at mapgears.com>, Daniel
Morissette <dmorissette at MAPGEARS.COM> wrote:
> Steve Lime wrote:
>> 
>> So, URL variable names will still require a bit of intelligence to know what 
> object to
>> update. They would take the identical form as they do now, e.g. map_scalebar
>> or map_layername. Admittedly URL config is really only useful for modifying 
> the 
>> highest level objects (e.g. scalebar, layer, legend and so on). Getting at 
> the nested
>> objects of a layer or a class is rather difficult. Right now the variable 
> naming supports
>> numeric access since there is no other way to uniquely reference a class or 
> style. To
>>  get to the 1st style in the 1st class of layer 'foo' you do:
>> 
>>   map_foo_class_0_style_0 or map_layer_5_class_0_style_0
>> 
>> We have to retain that unfortunately. I can't think of a better method, but 
> it does
>> work. Actually I'd prefer slightly more intuitive syntax like:
>> 
>> map_layer=foo_class=0_style=2
>> 
> 
> Or perhaps array-type syntax such as:
> 
> map_layer[foo]_class[0]_style[2]=COLOR+255+0+0
> 
> I believe it should be possible to access classes by name as well if the 
> target class has its name set, right?
> 
> Daniel