mixing feature & map service layers, something less hacky?

[PaulHastings1]

i have an app that mixes map service layers (ArcGISDynamicMapServiceLayer) with feature layers from the same map service source--mainly because the feature layers' symbolizations aren't too good otherwise i'd just use feature layers.

prior to selecting a feature for editing or some other processing the user needs to see info about that feature, we use mouseOver events on the feature layers for that. when not actually needed the alpha for the feature layers is set to 0.0 (transparent) to get them out of the user's display but still "there" so the mouseOver events work. this strikes me as kind of hacky & i'm wondering if there was another more elegant way of handling this?

thanks.

[RobertScheitlin__GISP]

Paul,

   Have you considered just using FeatureLayers and setting the symbology in your code?

[PaulHastings1]

yes, but the symbolization's not up to the task (or i'm not seeing a way to do some of the more complex ones w/out ending up in the same "hacky" place). this app's users are particular about their symbolizations & it's pretty complex. i'm still digging into custom client-side symbols though. some of what i think is needed is similar to the  http://forums.arcgis.com/threads/84417-Possible-to-use-addChild()-to-add-display-objects-to-a-map-ob... thread. complex data-driven symbols (eg a mooring with various radii & mooring lines).

[RobertScheitlin__GISP]

Paul,

    If you are using ArcGIS Server 10 or greater and adding a FeatureLayer does not produce the symbology that you need and clientside symbology will not suffice then you are just out of luck for now.

[PaulHastings1]

yup.

generating renderers & sending them back to the server only allows ClassBreaks or UniqueValue. i'm still poking around these classes' baseSymbol property but my 1st look at this seem like it will only handle simple symbols/color changes.

i can probably build some of the symbols i need client side but these would have to end up on a graphics layer, which isn't that far removed from i'm doing now but w/all that extra code (that's my major objection to that approach--i'd really like to keep things in a feature or map service layer where they can be properly managed).