[geomoose-psc] Examples / Demos / Mulitple Mapbooks

[James Klassen]

I like where this is going.

On Sat, May 22, 2021, 12:44 Brent Fraser <bfraser at geoanalytic.com> wrote:

> good point.  I'll think about the uses of the Examples:
> 1. new users use them to explore GeoMoose and guide them in their
> implementation (along with the doc)
> 2. we use them for testing
> 3. at least one is used for our online Demo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: Eli Adam <eadam at co.lincoln.or.us>
> *Sent*: 5/22/21 11:34 AM
> *To*: Brent Fraser <bfraser at geoanalytic.com>
> *Cc*: Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com>, GeoMOOSE PSC <
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject*: Re: [geomoose-psc] Examples / Demos / Mulitple Mapbooks
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 9:38 AM Brent Fraser <bfraser at geoanalytic.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>  I agree with Dan's proposal below.  Here's a structure to consider (in
> preparation for an RFC) to minimize the duplication of css etc:
>
>   Examples/desktop
>         mapbook.xml
>         mapbook-editing-geoserver.xml (superset of mapbook.xml)
>         mapbook-editing-tinyowx.xml (superset of mapbook.xml)
>         mapbook-testing.xml (kitchen-sink of all possible map source
> types, might need its own app.js)
>
>
> Would mapbook-testing.xml have editing?  I would like to see editing in
> some testing/demo capacity beyond isolation.  See my previous comments in
> this thread, https://github.com/geomoose/gm3/issues/631
>
>
>
>   Examples/mobile
>         mapbook.xml
>
> And I think we should tweak mapbook.xml and app.js to help new users adapt
> them in their journey in implementing GeoMoose.
>
> Thanks!
> Brent
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com>
> *Sent*: 5/22/21 9:36 AM
> *To*: GeoMOOSE PSC <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
> *Subject*: [geomoose-psc] Examples / Demos / Mulitple Mapbooks
>
> I think we have hit a critical mass of needing *four* Desktop demos:
>
> 1. Editing - The two mapbooks below should be identical but for their
> target server. I am in favor of having these be a more limited workflow
> that shows how editing works in a practical way.
>
>
> Benefits and drawbacks with this approach, as noted in that issue thread.
>
>
>   A. Based on GeoServer.
>   B. Based on PostGIS.
>
>
> I assume that "PostGIS"=TinyOWS?  Would GeoServer be backed by PostGIS or
> spatialite, shapefile, or some other file based data source?
>
>
> 2. "The Desktop Demo" a la the status quo. The demo that people will "Copy
> Pasta" and turn into their deployed Website. Drop all the scary warning
> messages, ensure our comments are up to date, and that we remove the "Test
> code". We attempt to show a reasonable set of data types that people would
> find around in a "typical" County/City/Division website.
> 3. "The testing mapbook":
>  - This can have the same layers configured in different ways (WFS, WMS)
>  - "Test grids" - So we can test scaling and printing issues.
>  - Can include stuff that is intentionally broken to test error handling.
>  - I feel we can add stuff with a <exp:> prefix to denote some
> experimental stuff we could point users to but not feel the need to adopt
> and support long term.
>
>
> Hopefully this would include editing and not so much experimental and
> intentionally broken things as to prevent useful testing.
>
>
>
> Does this seem like a lot? Sure. Maybe? Why I don't think it is:
>
>
> GeoMoose does a lot so this does not seem like a lot to me.  I agree, it
> is not a lot.  It is a little (for the footprint of functions that GeoMoose
> covers).
>
>
> 1. The editing workflow is pretty dedicated and I feel Brent has put some
> real time into making sure it is well tested. I feel like that will
> continue and we have historically had good stakeholders for that
> functionality.
> 2. The "Desktop demo" will be a subset of the functionality that starts in
> the testing mapbook.
> 3. I find it harder to comment, uncomment, and generally futz around with
> the "Desktop demo" all the time to make sure it looks okay AND that we have
> all of the needed functionality ready to test. While, yes, additional
> unit-testing will help it is very hard to beat a real-world end-to-end test.
>
> I may take an initial swipe at this when I do the multiple mapbooks
> support but drafting an official RFC may be prudent here.
>
> Thanks for reading!
>
>
> Sounds mostly great!
>
> Cheers, Eli
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20210522/c3161574/attachment.html>