[OSGeo-Discuss] Supporting new projects

[Bob Basques]

All,

I've been reading this thread from the start.  Very interested since I 
just submitted an application for a Incubation project.

I have to side with Paul too, our application project is compared (on 
the surface) to OpenLayers to whom ever we show it to.  While on the 
surface it looks to operate very much like OpenLayers, it's a different 
approach to services, integration and data organization on the whole.   
And we feel there is a need for this type of approach that is different 
than the one taken by OpenLayers.

Also, I believe that there are some flaws with the coding approach in 
some cases for OpenLayers.  I'm trying not to downplay Openlayers here, 
but I believe that Open Layers is at the point of a re-write as well.  
Our project is at it's third version of a rewrite for example and has 
ended up very stable, with a very small foot printed related to it's 
capabilities.

Recently we've been discussing using the OpenLayers tiling "get" methods 
for incorporation into our package, but some concerns about memory leaks 
and coding methodologies are cause for concern by our team.

In short, pointing potential users at any one application/package is not 
going to promote innovations and the overall code stack will suffer 
because of it.  Making the strengtha and weakness know would be a much 
better approach.  Some thing I think could have an effect on the 
GeoOpenSource space, would be to have a review process for new projects 
that OSGEO could manage.  Even doing followups over time on project of 
user interest would help too.  Treat it just like a electronic magazine 
and generate review articles about new and ongoing project.  Much better 
way to inform new and potential users I think.

bobb

Paul Spencer wrote:
>>
>> More comments:
>>
>> - Project duplicates should be avoided, new incremental
>> functionalities should be stirred towards the existing projects as
>> much as possible.
> I respectfully disagree on your last point.  I personally believe 
> there is great benefit in encouraging new approaches.  Mapnik is a 
> good example, we would have discouraged its development in favour of 
> mapserver.  OpenLayers vs ka-Map is another example.  There are many 
> others.  In many cases, a complete rewrite is desirable to take 
> advantage of new ideas/technologies etc and existing projects often 
> don't want to undertake a complete rewrite.
>
> Paul
>