[OpenLayers-Dev] Development regarding WFS layer/protocol
Tim Schaub
tschaub at opengeo.org
Thu Sep 25 12:24:29 EDT 2008
Hello-
Julien-Samuel Lacroix wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, the WFS protocol is of use to anyone using WFS. You should be able
to confirm that a filter added to a layer with the WFS protocol will be
serialized in the body of a GetFeature POST (ack).
Thanks for any help in reviewing/testing.
Tim
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
More information about the Dev
mailing list