[OpenLayers-Dev] Development regarding WFS layer/protocol

Wed Sep 24 10:41:24 EDT 2008

HI,

We work with WFS on a daily basis, but not with transactional. Does that 
patch apply to us as well? If so, we would be happy to help.

Julien

Tim Schaub wrote:
> Hey-
> 
> So, tests are now passing with the WFS protocol.  I think this is pretty 
> close and would appreciate any help creating tests, trying it out, etc.
> 
> The patch [1] includes a very basic Save strategy.  This is a manual 
> save strategy (requires that you call save).  It can be used as the 
> basis for auto or greedy save strategies, but I think we should keep it 
> simple for this patch.
> 
> Thanks for any assistance testing/reviewing.
> 
> Tim
> 
> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1648
> 
> Tim Schaub wrote:
> 
>>Hey-
>>
>>I put up a patch that represents progress towards a working WFS protocol.
>>
>>http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1648
>>
>>I'll work on it a bit more tomorrow.  Please feel free to pick it up and 
>>push it forward (anyone).  The wfs-protocol-transactions.html example is 
>>a good place to start with a debugger.  In the end, this example will do 
>>inserts, updates, and deletes (with a commit from the save button).
>>
>>Tim
>>
>>Björn Harrtell wrote:
>>
>>>I have been making a serious (relatively? :) attempt at understanding 
>>>what is to be done regarding Protocol.WFS and related classes. I looked 
>>>at it from the angle in which it would be useful for me in the case I 
>>>described before.
>>>
>>>* the standard WFS-T
>>>* Fixed and Save (and perhaps SaveGreedy) strategy
>>>
>>> From I can gather none of these are far from complete, but what I'm 
>>>missing is option to filter the input in Fixed strategy. I noticed that 
>>>the trunk version of BBOX strategy looks for additional filters in the 
>>>layer and while it might be a good place put the additional filter I 
>>>can't see any indication that Layer actually is supposed to support such 
>>>a property. If it should it should be documented and used by fixed 
>>>strategy also?
>>>
>>>I would like to to implement this before beeing able to do serious 
>>>testing. I nice thing is that I could test stuff directly in a real 
>>>world case where I'm using (successfully) the clumsy old Layer.WFS way 
>>>with a temp layer. But before that I would like to confirm that I got 
>>>the right idea...
>>>
>>>A question on the side... why are some methods declared "JSONy" i.e 
>>>'read' instead of read?
>>>
>>>/Björn
>>>
>>>On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:10 AM, Tim Schaub <tschaub at opengeo.org 
>>><mailto:tschaub at opengeo.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Hey-
>>>
>>>    Björn Harrtell wrote:
>>>     > Hi devs,
>>>     >
>>>     > I'm coding an application that uses OL vector editing and WFS
>>>     > transactions quite heavily.
>>>     >
>>>     > I use a temporary OpenLayers.Layer.Vector for editing, moving
>>>    stuff to a
>>>     > OpenLayers.Layer.WFS as the user makes edits. This is a bit
>>>    clumsy and
>>>     > complicated but works. The reason why I'm doing this is because
>>>     > OpenLayers.Layer.WFS only supports GET and is also loading
>>>    features on
>>>     > demand (hmm is this correct?) which doesn't fit my needs. Note
>>>    that I do
>>>     > not add the OpenLayers.Layer.WFS to a map, I only use
>>>    create/commit the
>>>     > WFS transactions.
>>>     >
>>>     > I would like to use something like a static/manually triggered WFS
>>>     > (supporting POST and filtering) source to an OpenLayers.Layer.Vector
>>>     > that syncs changes to the WFS source which then can be commited
>>>     > programmatically.
>>>     >
>>>     > Is this sort of what OpenLayers.Protocol.WFS (which I think is beeing
>>>     > worked on?) is supposed to be used for? Or would it be sensible
>>>    to make
>>>     > something more of OpenLayers.Layer.WFS instead?
>>>
>>>    Yes, this is exactly the job for a WFS protocol.  As Eric mentions, the
>>>    work is mostly in the vector-behavior sandbox.  I'll make an effort to
>>>    update that and to get a patch ready for the trunk.
>>>
>>>    My hope is to get the WFS protocol in the trunk before the end of next
>>>    week.  Any help you can contribute would be appreciated.
>>>
>>>    Watch the WFS protocol ticket [1] for updates from me, and leave any
>>>    comments/patches there that you put together.
>>>
>>>    Tim
>>>
>>>    [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1648
>>>
>>>
>>>     >
>>>     > Either way, I'm interested in (trying) to help out if this seems like
>>>     > something you would like to support in OL, and can probably do it
>>>    as a
>>>     > part of the current project as it would simplify things for me I
>>>    think.
>>>     >
>>>     > Regards,
>>>     >
>>>     > Björn Harrtell
>>>     > GIS Consultant
>>>     > SWECO Position AB
>>>     > <http://www.swecogroup.com/en/Sweco-group/Services/Geographic-IT/>
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>     >
>>>    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     >
>>>     > _______________________________________________
>>>     > Dev mailing list
>>>     > Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>
>>>     > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>
>>>
>>>    --
>>>    Tim Schaub
>>>    OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>>>    Expert service straight from the developers.
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    Dev mailing list
>>>    Dev at openlayers.org <mailto:Dev at openlayers.org>
>>>    http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Julien-Samuel Lacroix
Mapgears
http://www.mapgears.com/