[geomoose-psc] Examples / Demos / Mulitple Mapbooks

[Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)]

I would like to reinforce the idea of getting the multiple mapbooks capability, this should help with uptake on the end users behalf of all the new work coming out.  Easier to organize too.

So, related to this, does multiple mapbooks really mean swapping mapbooks, or will we be able to source multiple mapbooks at the same time, in one interface?   :c).   I can see business cases for isolating the editing functions as well as mixing them into a larger lookup interface.  So swapping of Mapbooks would certainly be used, but having separate mapbooks for lookup and editing??

I like the old way of mapbook= for swapping since it’s bookmarkable.

Bobb



From: geomoose-psc <geomoose-psc-bounces at lists.osgeo.org> on behalf of Dan Little <theduckylittle at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, May 22, 2021 at 10:36 AM
To: "geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org" <geomoose-psc at lists.osgeo.org>
Subject: [geomoose-psc] Examples / Demos / Mulitple Mapbooks

Think Before You Click: This email originated outside our organization.

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.
  A. Based on GeoServer.
  B. Based on PostGIS.
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.

Does this seem like a lot? Sure. Maybe? Why I don't think it is:
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!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geomoose-psc/attachments/20210523/ecde5f7a/attachment-0001.html>