MapServer <=> Autodesk MapGuide <=> JShape

[mark.wilson at rohoel.at]

> Does anybody here have experience with MapServer and Autodesk MapGuide
> and JShape?
> Do you have any comments you'd like to share? What do you think of them?
> Which is better? :>


I've "played" with both JShape and Mapserver. Here are some observations that I
found were notable, and that might have some influence on your preferences:

1) Licencing.
Mapserver has written licence conditions. Although JShape is promoted as
freeware, there isn't any formal licencing conditions in existence that I'm
aware of.

2) Platform
Being Java based has pros and cons...
A disadvantage is that you are subject to different Java engine implementations
on different platforms. For example, I wanted to make use of Javascript - JShape
communication, but this does not work in current Mac environments (with any
browser). Also I noted big differences in speed of the graphics refreshing on
different platforms.
An advantage is that the use of the JShape applet is not reliant on a webserver,
so in theory you could distribute it on CD, for example, together with relevant
data.

3) Scripting Language
I found the JScript language surprisingly flexible, and I found I could code
most of the (limited) functionality that I wanted. However, that said, mapscript
gives you all the flexibility you would ever need. But the downside is that
mapscript is not nearly so user friendly  (at least for those without much
programming experience).

4) Interface Philosophy
This is largely down to personal preferences (yours and/or the users of your
application). JShape being Java based means that potentially you have to wait
for the applets to download, and then the data as well. However, after the
initial wait, the user experience is quite satisfying as you can zoom, pan, and
query in "real time". Mapserver is quicker to load initially but of course
requires a refresh from the webserver for every action (whether it be zoom, pan,
or query).

5) Customisation
The Mapserver interface is of course completely customisable in HTML..
Similarly, with JShape you can customise an interface with HTML, as long as you
use the Javascript - JShape applet communication functionality. Even without an
HTML based interface, the JShape window  by itself is quite customisable. You
can force the map to occupy the whole window, or switch to the default display
which has buttons (with up to 5 customisable ones), legend, command line, and
text output area. Scripts can be attached to the buttons. Any added button
scripts also appear in a dropdown menu which can be accessed in full screen
mode.

6) Compatibility
Since they both take shapefiles as their source data, you don't need to convert
any data. One approach would be to make some of the simpler application
functionality available in JShape, and let your users decide which way they want
to explore the data. (But of course that approach has the price of duplicated
effort - a luxury that may not be affordable??)

7) Support and Documentation
There is not much support available for JShape. I posted a couple of questions
to JShape software, but never got a reply. As far as I'm aware, there is no
mailing list like there is for MapServer. This forum works quite well for
getting answers to support issues. Documentation for JShape is very good, in my
view. There are lots of "walkthrough" tutorials, each one introducing the new
user to one or two new features.

8) Future Direction
MapServer is still being developed. Earlier in the year JShape Software was
advertising the JShape application for sale. Although you can still download the
latest version, whether there will be any further (freeware) versions remains to
be seen.

Overall, I am impressed with the stability and functionality of JShape. It
accomplishes a lot for its size and is not too difficult to install and use for
developing applications. With extensions and API's, some of which cost extra,
more functionality, or interfaces to databases could be added. For me, MapServer
has better support, seems more powerful and flexible "out of the box", but has a
correspondingly steeper learning curve.

Hope that helps,
Mark