[fusion-dev] fusion 1.1 planning

[Paul Spencer]

Um, I know we tested it but I am not sure that the current code is  
actually using it - if not, that needs to be changed.

Cheers

Paul

On 7-May-08, at 2:39 PM, Chris Claydon wrote:
> MG releases prior to 2.0 should ignore the FORMAT parameter used to  
> request a JSON response, and simply return XML. So if Fusion checks  
> the mime type of the response, it should be able to determine  
> whether or not it needs to call the internal xml2json stuff.
>
> When the MG JSON support was implemented, every effort was made to  
> ensure that the JSON produced would be the same as that created by  
> Fusion's internal converter, so the transition should be relatively  
> straightforward :)
>
> Chris.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fusion-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fusion-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
> Sent: May 7, 2008 12:17 PM
> To: Paul Spencer (External); fusion-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Cc: fusion-users
> Subject: RE: [fusion-dev] fusion 1.1 planning
>
> Is Fusion using the MapGuide MapAgent JSON output implemented in:
>
> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc25
>
> yet?  I've managed to get a bit lost trying to figure out what is  
> going
> on, but as far as I can tell it's doing requests without specifying
> content type, and post-processing the XML into JSON.  I'd imagine that
> this would have substantial performance benefits.
>
> If the json format output by MapGuide is the same as that used by the
> internal xml2json stuff, this probably wouldn't be a huge change.  But
> it may need to be configurable if supporting < 2.0 MapGuide releases  
> is
> important?
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Spencer
> Subject: [fusion-dev] fusion 1.1 planning
>
> We'd like to start planning for a fusion 1.1 release this summer
> sometime.  I don't have a specific feature set or time frame in mind
> for a release, but it would be nice to have it before FOSS4G (Sept
> 2008).
>
> My primary goals for a 1.1 release are:
>
> 1) improve performance (and reduce library size),
> 2) take advantage of more OpenLayers features,
> 3) API cleanup and documentation
>
> Currently, Mike is working on the following aspects (some are already
> complete):
>
> * upgrade to OpenLayers 2.6 final
> * move from Prototype.js framework to OpenLayers equivalents (freeing
> us up to move away from Prototype.js and Scriptaculous in the Jx
> library)
> * make more extensive use of OpenLayers handlers/controls in place of
> existing widget code that does the same thing
> * implement support for other OpenLayers layer types through the
> MapGroup tag in the ApplicationDefinition
> * improved single file builds (including a 'compiled application'
> capability)
>
> I will be working on a new version of Jx that will use MooTools
> instead of Prototype.js and Scriptaculous which will give Jx a smaller
> final size and more cinematic effects.  I will be updating Fusion to
> use the new Jx for 1.1 as well.
>
> The net effect of all these changes will be to reduce the size of the
> code base (streamlining initial start up) and remove extraneous code
> (probably not a noticeable runtime effect yet).
>
> There will also be some bug fixes of course, but I don't see any
> substantial work going into new widgets unless there are some new
> contributors willing to get involved.
> _______________________________________________
> fusion-dev mailing list
> fusion-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-dev


__________________________________________

    Paul Spencer
    Chief Technology Officer
    DM Solutions Group Inc
    http://www.dmsolutions.ca/