Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP 153 - opaque container layer group mode

[Jody Garnett]

Thanks Kevin.

I have updated https://github.com/geoserver/geoserver/wiki/GSIP-153 with
the table of responsibilities for each layer group mode.

We could not come up with any good alternate wording, please proceed.

--
Jody Garnett

On 3 January 2017 at 16:04, Kevin Smith  wrote:

> On 17-01-03 10:30 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> > I agree both that "opaque container" is a bit ugly and potentially
> > confusing and that "basemap" is too specific.  Maybe a "flat group"?
>
> Jody and I just talked this over and I withdraw "flat group". My new
> suggestion is "Restricted Single" which isn't great but is consistent
> with "single" meaning it does not show it's children while "trees" do.
> Jody likes "Container" which again avoids "tree" although I dislike that
> it is inconsistent with how "container" is used in "Container Tree"
> because a container tree is not a named layer.
>
> --
> Kevin Michael Smith
> 
>
>
>
> 
> --
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> ___
> Geoserver-devel mailing list
> Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
>
>
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP 153 - opaque container layer group mode

[Kevin Smith]

On 17-01-03 10:30 AM, Kevin Smith wrote:
> I agree both that "opaque container" is a bit ugly and potentially
> confusing and that "basemap" is too specific.  Maybe a "flat group"? 

Jody and I just talked this over and I withdraw "flat group". My new
suggestion is "Restricted Single" which isn't great but is consistent
with "single" meaning it does not show it's children while "trees" do. 
Jody likes "Container" which again avoids "tree" although I dislike that
it is inconsistent with how "container" is used in "Container Tree"
because a container tree is not a named layer.

-- 
Kevin Michael Smith





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel

Re: [Geoserver-devel] GSIP 153 - opaque container layer group mode

[Kevin Smith]

On 16-12-28 12:10 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 1:07 AM, Mike Pumphrey  > wrote:
>
> I know I'm non-voting, but I agree with Jody's point here. Also,
> to my mind, "opaque container" is better realized as "black box"
> (fewer syllables too).
>
> But I think "basemap" might get more to the heart of how it would
> be used.
>

> If I can share my non binding opinion (I honestly don't care much),
> basemap seems to be a bit specific,
> while it's a legit use case of the functionality, one could also have
> a group that cannot be broken up
> in component parts meant to be used as an overlay (thus, no basemap).
>
I agree both that "opaque container" is a bit ugly and potentially
confusing and that "basemap" is too specific.  Maybe a "flat group"? 

-- 
Kevin Michael Smith




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most 
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
Geoserver-devel mailing list
Geoserver-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel