Chris, I said every OL *network* protocol is HTTP-based. Eric
2008/6/29, Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 11:34:23AM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote: >> Hi. Regarding Protocol.HTTP maybe the naming isn't really appropriate >> since any OL network protocol is HTTP-based. > > The Google Gears protocol is HTTP based? :) > >> Since Protocol.HTTP uses >> GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, Protocol.REST might be a better name. > > That depends what we put in the HTTP protocol. My assumption was that > something like OSM and something like FeatureServer could both be based > on subclasses of the HTTP Protocol -- that the HTTP Protocol wouldn't > actually embed any write information, only reading from bounding boxes. > > If the plan is to have the HTTP Protocol do more than that, then yes, > perhaps REST makes sense, but I think there is still a class of > HTTP-centric, non-SimpleFeatures REST that could be usefully subclassed > from a smaller protocol. > > -- Chris > >> >> 2008/6/25, Christopher Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 03:53:33PM +0200, Eric Lemoine wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > More so than the HTTP protocol, I'll admit; but the entire reason for >> > the vector behavior work is just that the protocol stuff really isn't >> > well encapsulated, so we'll just put it this way: "The WFS layer is a >> > fscking mess" :) >> > >> >> > 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? >> > >> > I don't know exactly what we'll do: if we can change the underlying >> > implementation of these to just be simple wrappers around a vector layer >> > without changing API-supported behavior, that would be preferable: >> > otherwise, we may have to maintain the existing code. For example, the >> > WFS layer has support to render with Markers, something that the vector >> > behavior changes won't give us, so we can't really just dump the >> > Layer.WFS code that does that and depend on the vector behavior instead. >> > >> > Regards, >> > -- >> > Christopher Schmidt >> > MetaCarta >> > > > -- > Christopher Schmidt > MetaCarta > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/users