Justin Deoliveira ha scritto: > >> >> I thought you wanted to get rest stuff on 1.7.x before branching (whilst >> writing stuff directly against the new config would be trunk business?). >> Moreover, are the concept of map and workspace covered in the new >> configuration api? >> > Confused... I did mean that. I also meant including the config stuff > (wrapped up in the old model) on 1.7.x before branching as well. > > The new config has the idea of a Map, but not a workspace. I dont think > its necessary to model a workspace directly. I view a rest API as a > "view" of our config, not necessarily a 1-1 mapping. I still have not > heard a compelling reason for not reusing the idea of namespace as as > workspace... maybe i am missing something fundamental.
I thought the rest api was meant for geoserver configuration, not only for access. I thus expected an API for configuration to have a 1-1 relationship between the rest api and the configuration. >> >> I did not look at the moment. I'm looking that that REST proposal that >> does still call style a FeatureTypeStyle. The current configuration >> (and imho any sane usage) should use UserStyle directly, instead of >> splitting it into feature type styles.... > Hmm... which page are you looking at. I dont see it on this page: > > http://geoserver.org/display/GEOSDOC/GeoServer+Resources /geoserver/styles/<name> -> Return information about an existing style. (Can be represented as sld:FeatureTypeStyle.) thought later in the "map" section you have: /geoserver/maps/<name>/layers/<name>/styles/<name> -> Return information about a named style. In general, a named style on a layer is a group of style resources from the /geoserver/styles container. (Corresponds to sld:NamedStyle.) > But yeah... not sure. Its tough because they really have separated it in > the newest version of SLD... which references the SE spec. I am not > sure. We could keep things the way they are (style = UserStyle) but as > well have a finer grained class called FeatureTypeStyle. And have a > UserStyle contain a collection of FeatureTypeStyles... I don't know. Its > a tough call. They are separated in the new version of SLD, but you are still expected to use SLD 1.1 with a WMS no? SE 1.1 by itself does not seem very useful to me. I mean, to do most maps you have to take multiple feature type styles and lump them together in the proper order. Heck, with feature type style alone we would not be able to make the sample NY streets map we provide as a sample. You said that the new configuration supports the idea of Map, but it seems to me the new config idea of map is CompositeLayerInfo, which is a sort of a layer group, whilst the one in the proposal acts more like a mapserver mapfile, it makes you to create the style of each layer by lumping toghether feature type styles, it serves features, manages permissions and so on. From what I see it, it defines a sort of a virtual server, that shows you only what it is configured to make you see. I don't see anything like that in the current configuration proposal... or I'm missing something? Cheers Andrea ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
