[Geomoose-users] documentation ideas

[Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)]

All,

Ok, well, that settles that then.  :c)  So, should we fully embrace the MS4W approach in the Intro Diagram?  I’ll redo it with some more detail, but keep in on the simple side, using the notes so far.

bobb


> On Dec 23, 2015, at 11:20 AM, Jeff McKenna <jmckenna at gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote:
> 
> I am thinking of making GeoMOOSE the default application for MS4W (in other words, instead of downloading just MS4W alone and installing GeoMOOSE later, every install of MS4W would include GeoMOOSE, and show a default map (produced by GeoMOOSE/MapServer) on the opening localhost page.
> 
> I also (longer-term) want to add the ZOO-Project (WPS functionality) into the base install of MS4W; I hope that can work nicely with GeoMOOSE too.  Again, this is down the road, adding GeoMOOSE into the base install is first (I'll have to tackle many technical issues to get ZOO-Project compiled with MapServer support, on Windows).
> 
> -jeff
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jeff McKenna
> MapServer Consulting and Training Services
> http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/
> 
> On 2015-12-23 12:04 PM, James Klassen wrote:
>> OSGeo4W is unfortunately not very up to date on some key packages that
>> we need such as PHP and Mapscript.
>> 
>> I'd guess they would appreciate someone who would maintain those
>> packages.  Based on Jeff's efforts with MS4W, that sounds like it would
>> be a very substantial commitment.
>> 
>> On Dec 23, 2015 10:40 AM, "Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)"
>> <bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us <mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>> wrote:
>> 
>>    All,
>> 
>>     From the Windows side, I’ve also thought about OSGeo4W from time to
>>    time as an optional server framework for GeoMOOSE.
>> 
>>    I wonder what it would take to add that as an option.  We’ve always
>>    been mainly in the MS4W camp, but maybe more (varied) is better.
>> 
>>    bobb
>> 
>> 
>>>    On Dec 23, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Brent Fraser
>>>    <bfraser at geoanalytic.com <mailto:bfraser at geoanalytic.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    Good idea.  A note for those Linux users who read the intro doc
>>>    would be good.
>>> 
>>>    My changes to the intro doc assume MS4W.  I'll have to look into
>>>    OSGeo Live to understand the implications...
>>>    Best Regards,
>>>    Brent Fraser
>>>    On 12/23/2015 9:20 AM, James Klassen wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    Introductory material could also assume OSGeo Live which uses a
>>>>    similar layout to MS4W but under /usr/local/geomoose.   Similarly
>>>>    there are the build from source on Linux guides I wrote in the
>>>>    GitHub wiki that produce the standard layout in /srv/geomoose.
>>>> 
>>>>    Also,  I am starting to think we need at least one line to the
>>>>    effect of that this is an introduction and not the only way.   I
>>>>    fear people will be unaware of the power/flexibility present in
>>>>    the design of GeoMoose because we tend to downplay it in the
>>>>    Intros.   Maybe this material just needs to be a Chapter 2 or
>>>>    something.
>>>> 
>>>>    On Dec 23, 2015 10:10 AM, "Dan Little" <theduckylittle at gmail.com
>>>>    <mailto:theduckylittle at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>        Given Brent's observations, Introductory material should
>>>>        assume ms4w and expect linux/UNIX users are advanced enough
>>>>        to adapt.
>>>> 
>>>>        On Wednesday, December 23, 2015, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
>>>>        <<mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us
>>>>        <mailto:bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>            All,
>>>> 
>>>>            I agree it’s confusing on it’s own, but if there were
>>>>            more than one server package configuration to look at it
>>>>            wouldn’t seem as mysterious.  I was planning ahead
>>>>            somewhat, with the eventual idea that more of these
>>>>            simple diagrams might appear over time.
>>>> 
>>>>            Should a bare minimum approach to having a running
>>>>            GeoMOOSE be taken then in the diagram.  Also, what would
>>>>            the bare minimum look like?
>>>> 
>>>>            Need APACHE (or ISS) obviously, and . .
>>>> 
>>>>            I can put more detail in into the diagram related to MS4W
>>>>            specifically vs an option where Apache/PHP are installed
>>>>            separately.
>>>> 
>>>>            bobb
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>            > On Dec 23, 2015, at 7:15 AM, Dan Little
>>>>            <theduckylittle at gmail.com
>>>>            <mailto:theduckylittle at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>            >
>>>>            > I think the wording about MS4W is out of place and
>>>>            maybe even confusing.  If you install MS4W then Apache
>>>>            and PHP aren't optional -- they come with the package --
>>>>            and if someone /just/ installed GeoMOOSE they aren't
>>>>            necessarily going to understand that MS4w is optional in
>>>>            and of itself.  They either (a) had the wherewithal to
>>>>            install it on their platform of choice or (b) installed
>>>>            it from MS4W.  Either way putting the "optional
>>>>            framework" stuff on there could cloud the user's impressions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users