Re: [Gwt-openlayers-devl] WFSProtocolOptions

[Edwin C. <com...@gm...>]

Hi Dave,

Why have a getGeometryName on the Options object? The Options objects
typically only have setters, since they are a configuration mechanism.
By passing the options (or config) objects to a constructor (or static
factory method) the properties are transferred to the object taking
the options. That object's properties may be relevant within the
application.

Greetings,
Edwin

On 24 February 2010 16:59, Dave Koberstein <da...@ko...> wrote:
> Hmmm...   No, I think it should be in options.  I may have mistyped.
>
> On 2/24/2010 12:49 AM, Edwin Commandeur wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Just to get this correct: the getGeometryName should be a method on
> WFSProtocol, and not on WFSProtocolOptions, isn't it?
>
> I haven't used the GetFeature. Currently, I am not on any GWT
> projects, so I work on GWT-OL out of pure interest and to keep
> up-to-date with developments in GWT.
>
> Greetings,
> Edwin
>
>
> On 23 February 2010 22:51, Dave Koberstein <da...@ko...> wrote:
>
>
> Oh definitely - please do. Would you mind adding a getter for geometryName?
> That will save on hg conflicts.
>
> I don't know if you plan to use the GetFeature control.  Are you using
> geoserver?  I wonder if you've come across this annoyance.  If you make a
> layer group in geoserver of two vector layers, it does not let you make WFS
> feature requests on that layer group.   You have to request from the
> individual layers.  If makes sense if the vector layers are different types
> of data classes.  But if they are the same, it would be nice if it didn't
> impose that limitation.
>
> The constructor approach for WFSProtocol supports this (doesn't matter which
> layer your use in the constructor) however now the browser code needs to
> know what layers the layer group is made of.  I hate constants and
> configuration values.  :)
>
> Davek
>
> On 2/23/2010 1:36 PM, Edwin Commandeur wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
>
> The constructor approach is fine! Smart indeed to use to fromWMSLayer
> to save coding.
>
> If you're okay with that I will expand the WFSProtocolOptions with
> more setters (setURL, setFeatureType, setFeatureNS etc).
>
> Greetings,
> Edwin
>
> On 23 February 2010 22:09, Dave Koberstein <da...@ko...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Edwin,
>
> I totally relied on openlayers Protocol.WFS.fromWMSLayer constructor.  It's
> a convenience method where if your GetFeature control is attached to a WMS
> layer and WFS exists at the same service as WMS, then it just builds up a
> protocol for you automatically.  It maps very nicely into the typical
> geosever implementation and saves a ton of coding.
>
> I did the implementation right in the constructor since a separate method of
> the somewhat-obscure name seemed less useful.  There's a WFSProtocol
> constructor (the second one) that takes a WMS layer as well as an options
> object.  That calls a WFSProtocolImpl.create that takes the Layer.WMS object
> and the options object and does the construction with the javascript
> fromWMSLayer.
>
> I know this deviates from your approach of 1-1 mapping.  My thinking was to
> use Java's polymorphism on the constructor to make it simpler to understand
> - pass in your layer at construction time.
>
> Anyway back to why only setGeometryName.  fromWMSLayer uses some default
> geometry name (not from the layer) that doesn't match with geoserver (or
> maybe our team's use of geoserver - I'm not sure).  After construction any
> of the protocol parameters can be overridden and I needed this one.  I
> didn't go through and add all the others as I wasn't in a position to
> confirm any of it worked.  Now that I look at it, I should have added the
> getter.  I'll plan to do that.
>
> If you'd prefer the more 1-1 approach we can adjust it.  If you don't mind
> I'd like to keep this constructor implementation, though.  Also I can add
> more setters and getters WFSProtocolOptions with the caveat that I may not
> be able to thoroughly test.
>
> Davek
>
> On 2/23/2010 12:42 PM, Edwin Commandeur wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> When looking at the WFSProtocolOptions I was expecting to see methods
> for setting a Url etc, but it only had a method to setGeometryName
> method.
>
> Am I missing something? Is this an old version of WFSProtocolOptions,
> or do you set properties on the options object via JSObject?
>
> Greetings,
> Edwin
>
>
> --
> ________________________________
> Dave Koberstein
> Experienced head of open source technologies,
> VP of Product Line Management, Customer Engineering Services
> email:
> phone:
> da...@ko...
> +1-650-575-3853
>
>
> --
> ________________________________
> Dave Koberstein
> Experienced head of open source technologies,
> VP of Product Line Management, Customer Engineering Services
> email:
> phone:
> da...@ko...
> +1-650-575-3853
>
>
> --
> ________________________________
> Dave Koberstein
> Experienced head of open source technologies,
> VP of Product Line Management, Customer Engineering Services
> email:
> phone:
> da...@ko...
> +1-650-575-3853