Feature request: Grouping of layers
Instead of layer "merging" I suggest using layer "grouping". This is technically simpler and will IMHO go a long way to address what many need.
The idea
Merging is a good idea, but has some aspects with conflicts and rollbacks etc.
Technically it would be very much simpler to just "group" layers and to treat all the layers in a group "as one".
Graphical representation
The groups could be represented in a simple treeview approach where the groups could be "folder" and the layers "sub folders" like in Explorer.
Features
Most, if not all, items on the right-click menu for Layers would be usable on the "group", ie activate all at once, export all at once (of course keeping all layers in one VSA file to retain the groups integrity).
Furthermore menu items for "Add group", "Rename group", "Remove group" would be needed. Dragging and dropping layers around the treeview would make it simple to add layers to a group.
Usage scenario
File/Add group
File/Create New layer
Create the layer in the usual way
Move the new layer into the group
Repeat the above for new groups and layers.
I humbly challenge the development team to not be able to create this in a week :-)
Sindre Johansen
Comments
Challenge Accepted!
...because it's already in the code! :)
But... it's dormant and not tested in over a year.
We had layer groups in Beta 1 and disabled them to simplify the project. In hindsight, a bad choice. Re-introducing that feature isn't trivial, tho, since so much has changed in the SVS logic. So we'll bring them back in our next major release, Lightning.
Similar suggestion was made here, with some discussion.
Scott Jones
Business Critical Engineer, Endpoint Virtualization
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
Addition
Hi,
Very good idea and what I would like to see to is that you can give priority in the layer about what is activated first. So you can use the grouping feature instead of the build in events for some things you want to do.
Greetings,
Michiel
Treeview not enough
It is a good idea to have a treeview to show the dependencies, but it has one drawback.
There might be some layers that are needed by more then one layer, e.g. Java, .Net, etc.. But in a tree these layers would be seen multiple times (below each master layer). This gives the impression, that there are multiple instances of these slave layers. But these instances only link to a single layer that is just needed several times.
I admit I do not know a better solution right now, just wanted to point it out.
Ciao
toralf
Would you like to reply?
Login or Register to post your comment.