[geomoose-psc] [OpenLayers-Users] Future of OpenLayers or OL3

Tue Nov 20 11:20:00 PST 2012

Bob,

Besides not historically having developer resources to generally have
more than one version officially in play at at time, I think a lot of
what you are saying is already happening.  I know of at least two groups
who are pushing well beyond the base GeoMoose codebase (and are
contributing back enhancements as they stabilize).  So, playpens to try
out experimental ideas already exist and anyone is free to create their own.

In terms of official releases, we need to maintain a stable and
predictable product and try to maintain compatibility between versions. 
I don't think we need a bunch of different varieties of GeoMoose to
satisfy different experiences (WebGL/Mobile/IE).  I think the
flexibility is already there in GeoMoose to tailor the functionality to
be appropriate to the browser/device without needing to develop what
would essentially become separate products.

Jim

On 11/20/2012 01:01 PM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
>  
>
> Generally, my thoughts revolve around having more than one version of
> GeoMoose in play at a time.  I don't think it would be reasonable to
> think all users would want to switch to a potentially, completely new
> technology for development.  Having a separate "playpen" so to speak,
> with regard to adding features (even browser specific things) would
> seem like a good idea as a development lab sort of approach to trying
> things.
>
>  
>
> Maybe there needs to be a version for mobile as well, although I think
> there is an argument for the mobile space moving into the regular
> desktop capabilities space and so a Mobile version may not require
> differences.  Maybe it comes down to refocusing of priorities for end
> use.  The mobile market perhaps, should  be the main focus during
> development, with other users being set to the secondary level. 
> Either way, this is a movement of one type or another in a specific
> development direction.  And not all will agree with what that
> direction would/should be.  I don't believe this needs to be a browser
> decision making thing either, but it's potentially there depending on
> how some new technologies may be introduced.
>
>  
>
> Bobb
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:*Jim Klassen [mailto:klassen.js at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 20, 2012 11:44 AM
> *To:* Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
> *Cc:* geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> *Subject:* Re: [geomoose-psc] [OpenLayers-Users] Future of OpenLayers
> or OL3
>
>  
>
> Bob,
>
>  
>
> I don't understand what you are asking.  As much as dropping
> (particularly older, < 9) IE support would make development easier, it
> is possible and considered good design to gracefully degrade to not
> need to use the latest fanciest features if they are not available.
>  Also, phones/tablets which are increasingly important, also don't
> have the same level of browser support as desktop browsers.
>
>  
>
> So what is the "this" that you want to change to move GeoMoose to a
> higher level?
>
>  
>
> We already support and are using HTML5 features.  We no longer support
> IE 6 and older.  We are using OpenLayers and Dojo to (at least attempt
> to) manage the graceful fallback when running on less capable browsers.
>
>  
>
> Jim
>
>  
>
> On Nov 20, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul) wrote:
>
>
>
> All,
>
>  
>
> FYI -- Just saw this thread and passing it along to our list.  I've
> had some similar thoughts around GeoMoose with the same sorts of
> reservations about what people might want/not want as far as browser
> support.
>
>  
>
> A general question here, is this going to essentially take a big
> project to come along to make this happen, or are there others
> interested in moving to a higher level with GeoMoose?
>
>  
>
> Bobb
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* openlayers-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:openlayers-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> [mailto:openlayers-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org]
> <mailto:[mailto:openlayers-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org]> *On Behalf
> Of *George Silva
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 20, 2012 10:51 AM
> *To:* Sergeant_york
> *Cc:* openlayers-users at lists.osgeo.org
> <mailto:openlayers-users at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [OpenLayers-Users] Future of OpenLayers or OL3
>
>  
>
> The web is evolving fast. Many web clients are being deprecated at the
> organizations around the world.
>
>  
>
> Sooner or later, everyone will use a more compatible browser.
> OpenLayers cannot wait for larger organizations to adopt newer
> browsers. The development of new technology cannot be hold by the
> obsolence of others.
>
>  
>
> That said, I feel that if you have a customer that has a large user
> base and still want's to keep using internet explorer 6 (that is like,
> 10 years old?), it's also your job to convince them otherwise. There
> are open solutions to this problem (webkit, ff, opera?) and they don't
> need to spend one dollar on it.
>
>  
>
> 2cents
>
>  
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Sergeant_york
> <electronicpanda at gmail.com <mailto:electronicpanda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello there,
>
> I want to share my ideas and hesitations about GIS technologies and
> OpenLayers.
>
> Firstly, when I heard OL3 will use webGL I was so happy... Until I read
> about microsoft's policy about webGL. Probably with fear of
> competition they
> are completely thinking that webGL has security issues. That leaves
> Silverlight for map applications if you want to use computer's hardware
> totally. Unfortunately Silverlight doesn't have solutions as much as
> OpenLayers has. Technology is not the same as 1 sec ago and Microsoft
> follows the technology a bit slow.
>
> Secondly, in my opinion OpenLayers is the strongest tool for using gis
> applications. Everytime when I face with a problem, maybe as a habit,
> I say
> "I am sure OpenLayers has a solution for this problem" then I find it
> in api
> reference. So it is not easy to stop using OpenLayers for web based
> applications.
>
> On the other hand, eventhough Openlayers has good solutions and applies
> standarts pretty well, with extreme problems it may have performance
> issues.
> Actually, it is not OpenLayer's but web browser's performance issues.
> Because of limitations to use computer hardware in web applications cannot
> show than x amount of features or cannot show more than y layers together.
>
> Let's get back to 1st paragraph. OL3 uses webGL, I loved this. But still,
> unfortunately, high amount of the customers are still use "internet
> explorer". Because when a person is old, it is not easy to change their
> habits to make them use another browser that will accept webgl, and when a
> person is old, most likely they have money to support your projects.
>
> Also, with same performance reasons, it is not easy to apply complex
> jobs in
> applications. Technology is improving but when we are looking at OL
> geometry
> editing tools, they cannot serve a good solution for users who want to
> edit
> geometries.
>
> So, I think it is a good idea to implement webGL technologies but it
> is not
> a %100 solution for gis applications. That's why I am looking forward for
> OL3 to has better performance without using webGL too.
>
> What are your ideas for future of mainly OL and also other GIS clientside
> tools?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in
> context: http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/Future-of-OpenLayers-or-OL3-tp5017680.html
> Sent from the OpenLayers Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> <http://Nabble.com/>.
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Users at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-users
>
>
>
>  
>
> -- 
> George R. C. Silva
>
> Desenvolvimento em GIS
> http://geoprocessamento.net <http://geoprocessamento.net/>
> http://blog.geoprocessamento.net <http://blog.geoprocessamento.net/>
>
>  
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:Users at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-users
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org <mailto:geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20121120/c20ce2a6/attachment-0001.html>