+1 on the proposal
"single basemap" is an alternate for "opaque container" if you are
interested.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 3:21 PM Jody Garnett wrote:
> Reading now, tripping up over the naming "*Opaque Container".*
>
> I usually think of the word opaque as the opposite of transparent.
>
> The ma
Reading now, tripping up over the naming "*Opaque Container".*
I usually think of the word opaque as the opposite of transparent.
The main difference in our naming seems to between "single" and "tree".
This new layer group type is behaving like a single layer, we just wish the
contained layers we
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 9:27 AM Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback Andrea. Comments inline.
>
> Now you are getting me a bit worried... maybe it's nothing, but the
> request objects were not designed to be returned back to
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Justin Deoliveira
wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback Andrea. Comments inline.
>
>> Now you are getting me a bit worried... maybe it's nothing, but the
>> request objects were not designed to be returned back to the users,
>> depending on how deep you go dumping them
Thanks for the feedback Andrea. Comments inline.
On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 5:20 AM Andrea Aime
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Justin Deoliveira
> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm working on a project with a requirement as follows. Basically I want
> to be able to make a normal OGC (WMS, WF
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Justin Deoliveira
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm working on a project with a requirement as follows. Basically I want
> to be able to make a normal OGC (WMS, WFS, etc...) request to GeoServer,
> but I don't want it to fully execute. What I want is it to do pretty much
