On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 01:54:42PM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote: >> Although i find it weird to use a GML layer with a format different >> than GML i agree that it's good to avoid code at the application >> level. Thanks Andreas. Eric > > As Andreas pointed out, this is a flaw in naming. This is simply for > 'historical reasons' -- It was named that way early on, before I really > knew what I was doing. (It was named, for example, before we had > formats, back when it really *was* about GML.) > > The GML and WFS layers can essentially be thought of two different > strategies: GML is a Layer which uses a "Fixed" strategy, and WFS is a > Layer which uses a "BBOX" strategy. > > Both of them are tied to the HTTP Protocol.
The WFS layer is tied to the "WFS" protocol. > It's unfortunate that they're named this way, but that's one of the > things that the vector behavior work is changing: once we've refactored > things, we can start creating layers that actually make sense for their > names :) Ok, but what will we do with the WFS and GML layers? Will we keep them with the same names and behaviors to maintain backward compatibility? Thanks, -- Eric _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/users