On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:28 PM, David Winslow <[email protected]> wrote:
> +0 - "Group" and "Container" doesn't seem more or less clear than "Group
> and Single" and "Group Only" to me. The main thing IMHO is to avoid
> overloading the term 'opaque.' And we definitely will have to have some
> documentation regardless.
Yeah.. what bother me is this thing of a group that is normally exposed as
a single, but can be exposed as a group... ugh...
Imho we should try avoiding using group again in the names, since it's
already a layer group.
How about: single, named tree, container tree, eo tree?
Cheers
Andrea
--
==
Our support, Your Success! Visit http://opensdi.geo-solutions.it for more
information.
==
Ing. Andrea Aime
@geowolf
Technical Lead
GeoSolutions S.A.S.
Via Poggio alle Viti 1187
55054 Massarosa (LU)
Italy
phone: +39 0584 962313
fax: +39 0584 1660272
mob: +39 339 8844549
http://www.geo-solutions.it
http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it
-------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LogMeIn Rescue: Anywhere, Anytime Remote support for IT. Free Trial
Remotely access PCs and mobile devices and provide instant support
Improve your efficiency, and focus on delivering more value-add services
Discover what IT Professionals Know. Rescue delivers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/logmein_12329d2d
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
