On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 6:34 PM Jody Garnett <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was also thinking about the end-user - an opaque layer group is a good > candidate to switch styles as it is then not shown to the user (in the get > capabilities document) about the contents of the layer group. > > Reading proposal now: > > The proposal describes this as a choice: *different LayerGroup named > configurations, each comprising different sets of layers' styles and > eventually layers, in addition to the default one.* > > For the "eventually layers" part of the proposal I think we would end up > with: > - single: no problem as no structure is generated > - opaque container: no problem as no structure is generated > - named tree: suggest listing all the layers from all the the named > options (not sure what order to list in, perhaps does not matter?) > - container tree: not applicable to have named options, disable styling > completely > - earth observation: probably watch to associate a different root layer > with each "named configuration" > Quoting from the proposal: "The functionality *will be available for layer group with mode SINGLEor OPAQUE only*, since TREE groups can show only one sub-tree in capabilities." > > Feedback: > - "named configuration" - would like to just call this "style" if that is > how this is going to be presented in the get capabilities document > Agree, that's indeed how the mocks show it to the user, they are called "layer group styles" > - the ui *option 1* matches the workflow on wps security and other > security screens where we edit parts of a larger document > - I like the ui *option 2* and think it would be a good experiment. > Suggestion arranging the "Add Layer" " Add Layer Group" "Add Style Group" > horizontally, recommend placing an empty "StyleName" heading with an empty > label at the end of the list with "Add" at the end of the table (this would > result in less scrolling up and down the page). > The reorg of the existing style editor (which has the three "add" links stacked vertically) makes indeed sense. Having the controls to add a new layer at the end also makes sense. We want to keep the ability to copy another style, since we expect users to want to start from a base, and customize from there, rather than re-enter layers one by one. Cheers Andrea == GeoServer Professional Services from the experts! Visit http://bit.ly/gs-services-us for more information. == Ing. Andrea Aime @geowolf Technical Lead GeoSolutions Group phone: +39 0584 962313 fax: +39 0584 1660272 mob: +39 333 8128928 https://www.geosolutionsgroup.com/ http://twitter.com/geosolutions_it ------------------------------------------------------- Con riferimento alla normativa sul trattamento dei dati personali (Reg. UE 2016/679 - Regolamento generale sulla protezione dei dati “GDPR”), si precisa che ogni circostanza inerente alla presente email (il suo contenuto, gli eventuali allegati, etc.) è un dato la cui conoscenza è riservata al/i solo/i destinatario/i indicati dallo scrivente. Se il messaggio Le è giunto per errore, è tenuta/o a cancellarlo, ogni altra operazione è illecita. Le sarei comunque grato se potesse darmene notizia. This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. We remind that - as provided by European Regulation 2016/679 “GDPR” - copying, dissemination or use of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail
_______________________________________________ Geoserver-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
