general questions regarding the process of patches for new/enhanced functionality

9 messages Options
Embed this post
Permalink
Marc Jansen-2

general questions regarding the process of patches for new/enhanced functionality

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Hi devs,

I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or less
trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.

I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question by
someone with deeper insights in the project.

I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is the
process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired way?
Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to opening the
ticket? Please help me since I would love to participate in the project.

BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this in
Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.

Regards,
Marc

[1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
[2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
bartvde

Re: general questions regarding the process of patches for new/enhanced functionality

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Hi Marc,

welcome to the community, you're almost there (opening a ticket with a
patch is the right way), a few pointers:

-it is wise to set the state of your ticket to review, also if you want
it to get attention, make sure the milestone is the next possible
release (right now 2.9)
-a patch with a testcase is better than a patch without a testcase, so
if you could look into how to write a testcase that would be great
-a patch should ideally work against trunk

Best regards,
Bart

Marc Jansen wrote:

> Hi devs,
>
> I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
> functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or less
> trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.
>
> I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question by
> someone with deeper insights in the project.
>
> I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is the
> process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired way?
> Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to opening the
> ticket? Please help me since I would love to participate in the project.
>
> BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this in
> Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
> [2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>
>  


--
Bart van den Eijnden
OSGIS, Open Source GIS
[hidden email]
http://www.osgis.nl

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Marc Jansen-2

Re: general questions regarding the process of patches for new/enhanced functionality

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Hi Bart,

thanks for the warm welcome :-)

Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) schrieb:
> Hi Marc,
>
> welcome to the community, you're almost there (opening a ticket with a
> patch is the right way), a few pointers:
>
> -it is wise to set the state of your ticket to review, also if you
> want it to get attention, make sure the milestone is the next possible
> release (right now 2.9)

OK. I'll change that

> -a patch with a testcase is better than a patch without a testcase, so
> if you could look into how to write a testcase that would be great

OK. I will try to do that as well.

> -a patch should ideally work against trunk
>

Both patches work against the latest version of the trunk... or am I
misinterpreing something,

Regards,
Marc

> Best regards,
> Bart
>
> Marc Jansen wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
>> functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or
>> less trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.
>>
>> I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question
>> by someone with deeper insights in the project.
>>
>> I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is the
>> process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired way?
>> Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to opening the
>> ticket? Please help me since I would love to participate in the project.
>>
>> BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this
>> in Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>>
>> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
>> [2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>
>>
>>  
>
>

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Tim Schaub

Re: general questions regarding the process of patches for new/enhanced functionality

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Thanks for the excellent contribution Marc.

http://trac.openlayers.org/changeset/9720

I think it would be worth making eliminateDuplicates true by default
(and maybe changing it to simply "duplicates" and making it false).

Would anyone object?

Tim

Marc Jansen wrote:

> Hi Bart,
>
> thanks for the warm welcome :-)
>
> Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) schrieb:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> welcome to the community, you're almost there (opening a ticket with a
>> patch is the right way), a few pointers:
>>
>> -it is wise to set the state of your ticket to review, also if you
>> want it to get attention, make sure the milestone is the next possible
>> release (right now 2.9)
>
> OK. I'll change that
>
>> -a patch with a testcase is better than a patch without a testcase, so
>> if you could look into how to write a testcase that would be great
>
> OK. I will try to do that as well.
>
>> -a patch should ideally work against trunk
>>
>
> Both patches work against the latest version of the trunk... or am I
> misinterpreing something,
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>>
>> Marc Jansen wrote:
>>> Hi devs,
>>>
>>> I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
>>> functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or
>>> less trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.
>>>
>>> I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question
>>> by someone with deeper insights in the project.
>>>
>>> I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is the
>>> process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired way?
>>> Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to opening the
>>> ticket? Please help me since I would love to participate in the project.
>>>
>>> BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this
>>> in Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Marc
>>>
>>> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
>>> [2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev


--
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Marc Jansen-2

Re: general questions regarding the process of patches for new/enhanced functionality

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Hi Tim,

thanks for the review. Renaming seems reasonable, I guess there is no
wrong or right.

As for the default: I chose not to break the behaviour of the control
when being called without the parameter "eliminateDuplicates" set. On
the other hand: I can hardly guess of any situation where you wanted
duplicate atttribution texts.

Just my two cents,

Regards,
Marc


Tim Schaub schrieb:

> Thanks for the excellent contribution Marc.
>
> http://trac.openlayers.org/changeset/9720
>
> I think it would be worth making eliminateDuplicates true by default
> (and maybe changing it to simply "duplicates" and making it false).
>
> Would anyone object?
>
> Tim
>
> Marc Jansen wrote:
>  
>> Hi Bart,
>>
>> thanks for the warm welcome :-)
>>
>> Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) schrieb:
>>    
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> welcome to the community, you're almost there (opening a ticket with a
>>> patch is the right way), a few pointers:
>>>
>>> -it is wise to set the state of your ticket to review, also if you
>>> want it to get attention, make sure the milestone is the next possible
>>> release (right now 2.9)
>>>      
>> OK. I'll change that
>>
>>    
>>> -a patch with a testcase is better than a patch without a testcase, so
>>> if you could look into how to write a testcase that would be great
>>>      
>> OK. I will try to do that as well.
>>
>>    
>>> -a patch should ideally work against trunk
>>>
>>>      
>> Both patches work against the latest version of the trunk... or am I
>> misinterpreing something,
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>>
>>    
>>> Best regards,
>>> Bart
>>>
>>> Marc Jansen wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>
>>>> I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
>>>> functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or
>>>> less trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.
>>>>
>>>> I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question
>>>> by someone with deeper insights in the project.
>>>>
>>>> I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is the
>>>> process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired way?
>>>> Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to opening the
>>>> ticket? Please help me since I would love to participate in the project.
>>>>
>>>> BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this
>>>> in Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Marc
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
>>>> [2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>        
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>    
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Tim Schaub

duplicate attribution

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Hey-

Marc Jansen wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> thanks for the review. Renaming seems reasonable, I guess there is no
> wrong or right.
>
> As for the default: I chose not to break the behaviour of the control
> when being called without the parameter "eliminateDuplicates" set. On
> the other hand: I can hardly guess of any situation where you wanted
> duplicate atttribution texts.
>

Yeah, I would suggest that it is a bug to show the same attribution
twice.  In that light, changing the behavior would be fixing something
instead of breaking something.

Anybody else think that displaying the same attribution text multiple
times makes sense?

I'm guessing there is not a strong opinion one way or another.  I do
like the idea that at some point we can streamline the API, instead of
continually adding to it (particularly in cases where we are adding
things to work around somewhat odd behavior).

http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2300

Tim

> Just my two cents,
>
> Regards,
> Marc
>
>
> Tim Schaub schrieb:
>> Thanks for the excellent contribution Marc.
>>
>> http://trac.openlayers.org/changeset/9720
>>
>> I think it would be worth making eliminateDuplicates true by default
>> (and maybe changing it to simply "duplicates" and making it false).
>>
>> Would anyone object?
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> Marc Jansen wrote:
>>  
>>> Hi Bart,
>>>
>>> thanks for the warm welcome :-)
>>>
>>> Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) schrieb:
>>>    
>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>
>>>> welcome to the community, you're almost there (opening a ticket with
>>>> a patch is the right way), a few pointers:
>>>>
>>>> -it is wise to set the state of your ticket to review, also if you
>>>> want it to get attention, make sure the milestone is the next
>>>> possible release (right now 2.9)
>>>>      
>>> OK. I'll change that
>>>
>>>    
>>>> -a patch with a testcase is better than a patch without a testcase,
>>>> so if you could look into how to write a testcase that would be great
>>>>      
>>> OK. I will try to do that as well.
>>>
>>>    
>>>> -a patch should ideally work against trunk
>>>>
>>>>      
>>> Both patches work against the latest version of the trunk... or am I
>>> misinterpreing something,
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Bart
>>>>
>>>> Marc Jansen wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>
>>>>> I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
>>>>> functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or
>>>>> less trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question
>>>>> by someone with deeper insights in the project.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is
>>>>> the process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired
>>>>> way? Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to
>>>>> opening the ticket? Please help me since I would love to
>>>>> participate in the project.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this
>>>>> in Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Marc
>>>>>
>>>>> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
>>>>> [2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>    
>>
>>
>>  
>


--
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Christopher Schmidt-2

Re: duplicate attribution

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:06:25AM -0600, Tim Schaub wrote:

> Hey-
>
> Marc Jansen wrote:
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > thanks for the review. Renaming seems reasonable, I guess there is no
> > wrong or right.
> >
> > As for the default: I chose not to break the behaviour of the control
> > when being called without the parameter "eliminateDuplicates" set. On
> > the other hand: I can hardly guess of any situation where you wanted
> > duplicate atttribution texts.
> >
>
> Yeah, I would suggest that it is a bug to show the same attribution
> twice.  In that light, changing the behavior would be fixing something
> instead of breaking something.
>
> Anybody else think that displaying the same attribution text multiple
> times makes sense?
>
> I'm guessing there is not a strong opinion one way or another.  I do
> like the idea that at some point we can streamline the API, instead of
> continually adding to it (particularly in cases where we are adding
> things to work around somewhat odd behavior).

REviewed it, though honestly, I'd be willing to drop the option, since it
seems silly to maintain buggy behavior, and I can't imagine a case where
this behavior makes sense.

-- Chris

> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2300
>
> Tim
>
> > Just my two cents,
> >
> > Regards,
> > Marc
> >
> >
> > Tim Schaub schrieb:
> >> Thanks for the excellent contribution Marc.
> >>
> >> http://trac.openlayers.org/changeset/9720
> >>
> >> I think it would be worth making eliminateDuplicates true by default
> >> (and maybe changing it to simply "duplicates" and making it false).
> >>
> >> Would anyone object?
> >>
> >> Tim
> >>
> >> Marc Jansen wrote:
> >>  
> >>> Hi Bart,
> >>>
> >>> thanks for the warm welcome :-)
> >>>
> >>> Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) schrieb:
> >>>    
> >>>> Hi Marc,
> >>>>
> >>>> welcome to the community, you're almost there (opening a ticket with
> >>>> a patch is the right way), a few pointers:
> >>>>
> >>>> -it is wise to set the state of your ticket to review, also if you
> >>>> want it to get attention, make sure the milestone is the next
> >>>> possible release (right now 2.9)
> >>>>      
> >>> OK. I'll change that
> >>>
> >>>    
> >>>> -a patch with a testcase is better than a patch without a testcase,
> >>>> so if you could look into how to write a testcase that would be great
> >>>>      
> >>> OK. I will try to do that as well.
> >>>
> >>>    
> >>>> -a patch should ideally work against trunk
> >>>>
> >>>>      
> >>> Both patches work against the latest version of the trunk... or am I
> >>> misinterpreing something,
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Marc
> >>>
> >>>    
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Bart
> >>>>
> >>>> Marc Jansen wrote:
> >>>>      
> >>>>> Hi devs,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
> >>>>> functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or
> >>>>> less trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question
> >>>>> by someone with deeper insights in the project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is
> >>>>> the process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired
> >>>>> way? Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to
> >>>>> opening the ticket? Please help me since I would love to
> >>>>> participate in the project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this
> >>>>> in Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Marc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
> >>>>> [2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Dev mailing list
> >>>>> [hidden email]
> >>>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>          
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Dev mailing list
> >>> [hidden email]
> >>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >>>    
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >
>
>
> --
> Tim Schaub
> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> Expert service straight from the developers.
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

--
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Tim Schaub

Re: duplicate attribution

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink
Christopher Schmidt wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:06:25AM -0600, Tim Schaub wrote:
>> Hey-
>>
>> Marc Jansen wrote:
>>> Hi Tim,
>>>
>>> thanks for the review. Renaming seems reasonable, I guess there is no
>>> wrong or right.
>>>
>>> As for the default: I chose not to break the behaviour of the control
>>> when being called without the parameter "eliminateDuplicates" set. On
>>> the other hand: I can hardly guess of any situation where you wanted
>>> duplicate atttribution texts.
>>>
>> Yeah, I would suggest that it is a bug to show the same attribution
>> twice.  In that light, changing the behavior would be fixing something
>> instead of breaking something.
>>
>> Anybody else think that displaying the same attribution text multiple
>> times makes sense?
>>
>> I'm guessing there is not a strong opinion one way or another.  I do
>> like the idea that at some point we can streamline the API, instead of
>> continually adding to it (particularly in cases where we are adding
>> things to work around somewhat odd behavior).
>
> REviewed it, though honestly, I'd be willing to drop the option, since it
> seems silly to maintain buggy behavior, and I can't imagine a case where
> this behavior makes sense.

Cool.  I agree.

http://trac.openlayers.org/attachment/ticket/2300/2300.2.patch

Tim

>
> -- Chris
>
>> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2300
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>> Just my two cents,
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Marc
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Schaub schrieb:
>>>> Thanks for the excellent contribution Marc.
>>>>
>>>> http://trac.openlayers.org/changeset/9720
>>>>
>>>> I think it would be worth making eliminateDuplicates true by default
>>>> (and maybe changing it to simply "duplicates" and making it false).
>>>>
>>>> Would anyone object?
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>>>
>>>> Marc Jansen wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>> Hi Bart,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the warm welcome :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bart van den Eijnden (OSGIS) schrieb:
>>>>>    
>>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> welcome to the community, you're almost there (opening a ticket with
>>>>>> a patch is the right way), a few pointers:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -it is wise to set the state of your ticket to review, also if you
>>>>>> want it to get attention, make sure the milestone is the next
>>>>>> possible release (right now 2.9)
>>>>>>      
>>>>> OK. I'll change that
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>> -a patch with a testcase is better than a patch without a testcase,
>>>>>> so if you could look into how to write a testcase that would be great
>>>>>>      
>>>>> OK. I will try to do that as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>> -a patch should ideally work against trunk
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      
>>>>> Both patches work against the latest version of the trunk... or am I
>>>>> misinterpreing something,
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Marc
>>>>>
>>>>>    
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Bart
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marc Jansen wrote:
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>> Hi devs,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recently opened two tickets ([1], [2]) for new / enhanced
>>>>>>> functionality of OpenLayers components. Both of them have (more or
>>>>>>> less trivial) patches attached to provide the actual functionality.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would love to have a short note/review about the code in question
>>>>>>> by someone with deeper insights in the project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not quite sure if I did everything the "OpenLayers-Way". Is
>>>>>>> the process of opening a ticket and submitting a patch the desired
>>>>>>> way? Should I have started a discussion on this list prior to
>>>>>>> opening the ticket? Please help me since I would love to
>>>>>>> participate in the project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW: I have not handed in a CLA up until now. Maybe we can fix this
>>>>>>> in Sydney, as I guess many from the project will meet up there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Marc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2266
>>>>>>> [2] http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/2288
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>          
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Dev mailing list
>>>>> [hidden email]
>>>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>>>>>    
>>>>
>>>>  
>>
>> --
>> Tim Schaub
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>


--
Tim Schaub
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
Paul Spencer-2

Re: duplicate attribution

Reply Threaded More More options
Print post
Permalink

On 2009-10-08, at 12:32 PM, Tim Schaub wrote:

>> Reviewed it, though honestly, I'd be willing to drop the option,  
>> since it
>> seems silly to maintain buggy behavior, and I can't imagine a case  
>> where
>> this behavior makes sense.
>
> Cool.  I agree.
>
> http://trac.openlayers.org/attachment/ticket/2300/2300.2.patch
>
> Tim

FWIW, I too agree that this should be considered a bug fix rather than  
a new option

Cheers

Paul

__________________________________________

    Paul Spencer
    Chief Technology Officer
    DM Solutions Group Inc
    http://research.dmsolutions.ca/

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev