[OpenLayers-Users] GeoRSS and Custom Icons

[Eric Lemoine]

Hi. Regarding Protocol.HTTP maybe the naming isn't really appropriate
since any OL network protocol is HTTP-based. Since Protocol.HTTP uses
GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, Protocol.REST might be a better name. Regards.
Eric

2008/6/25, Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt at metacarta.com>:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:53:33PM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Christopher Schmidt
>> <crschmidt at metacarta.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 01:54:42PM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote:
>> >> Although i find it weird to use a GML layer with a format different
>> >> than GML i agree that it's good to avoid code at the application
>> >> level. Thanks Andreas. Eric
>> >
>> > As Andreas pointed out, this is a flaw in naming. This is simply for
>> > 'historical reasons' -- It was named that way early on, before I really
>> > knew what I was doing. (It was named, for example, before we had
>> > formats, back when it really *was* about GML.)
>> >
>> > The GML and WFS layers can essentially be thought of two different
>> > strategies: GML is a Layer which uses a "Fixed" strategy, and WFS is a
>> > Layer which uses a "BBOX" strategy.
>> >
>> > Both of them are tied to the HTTP Protocol.
>>
>> The WFS layer is tied to the "WFS" protocol.
>
> More so than the HTTP protocol, I'll admit; but the entire reason for
> the vector behavior work is just that the protocol stuff really isn't
> well encapsulated, so we'll just put it this way: "The WFS layer is a
> fscking mess" :)
>
>> > It's unfortunate that they're named this way, but that's one of the
>> > things that the vector behavior work is changing: once we've refactored
>> > things, we can start creating layers that actually make sense for their
>> > names :)
>>
>> Ok, but what will we do with the WFS and GML layers? Will we keep them
>> with the same names and behaviors to maintain backward compatibility?
>
> I don't know exactly what we'll do: if we can change the underlying
> implementation of these to just be simple wrappers around a vector layer
> without changing API-supported behavior, that would be preferable:
> otherwise, we may have to maintain the existing code. For example, the
> WFS layer has support to render with Markers, something that the vector
> behavior changes won't give us, so we can't really just dump the
> Layer.WFS code that does that and depend on the vector behavior instead.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Christopher Schmidt
> MetaCarta
>