<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/28/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Steve Lime</b> <<a href="mailto:Steve.Lime@dnr.state.mn.us" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Steve.Lime@dnr.state.mn.us
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I think there will be a number of AGG specific changes we might want to look at. Arrowheads are one<br>other example. I can extend styles for 5.2 if we desire to do that.</blockquote><div><br>as well as a few 'native' symbols maybe, without the need to specify them explicitely in the mapfile /
symbols.sym?<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Cap/join are only used for cartolines (that I could see) so if that option were to go away they could too.
<br>With AGG there's really no reason to use 'em.</blockquote><div><br>they can be used in agg too... miter and bevel joins could be usefull, as well as butt and square caps... maybe not a used/usefull enough feature to support though, I don't know about that
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Since the AGG support is so strong I would like to consider removing non-paletted support for GD
<br>altogether, that is no RGB or RGBA GD drivers. That would really simplify life and provide the most<br>consistent output in each case. We'd be left with:<br><br> - RGB/RGBA coming from AGG<br> - 256 color output from GD or AGG with a palette or quantization enabled
<br><br>Each library would be used for what it does best. Perhaps too radical?</blockquote><div><br>perhaps too radical I think... I'd prefer effort going into having renderers presenting a common interface to mapserver, but that's maybe further off...
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Steve<br><br>>>> On 8/28/2007 at 3:58 AM, in message<br><<a href="mailto:d2b988930708280158g4e195a24g37918523ad242687@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
d2b988930708280158g4e195a24g37918523ad242687@mail.gmail.com</a>>, thomas bonfort<br><<a href="mailto:thomas.bonfort@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">thomas.bonfort@GMAIL.COM
</a>> wrote:<br>> On 8/27/07, Steve Lime <<a href="mailto:Steve.Lime@dnr.state.mn.us" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
Steve.Lime@dnr.state.mn.us</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> I would agree with Zak, round for both (mimic the circular brush in GD).<br>>> We'll have to move those<br>>> keywords out of symbolObj's and into styleObj's.
<br>><br>><br>> just a few remarks here...<br>> removing cartolines is fine when using AGG, but gd still uses them if not<br>><br>> default caps are now round again.<br>><br>> I *don't* think we should remove the caps/join keywords from the symbolobj,
<br>> as they are used when drawing vector symbols (for fills, markers, and<br>> polyline markers from the top of my head).<br>> I *do* think having the same keywords in the stylobj is a good idea. I don't<br>
> think I want to go diving in the lexer code etc.. to add this myself, but I<br>> can quickly add this to the line rendering code once this is settled out<br>><br>> thomas<br><br></blockquote></div><br>