[Geomoose-users] documentation ideas
Dan Little
theduckylittle at gmail.com
Wed Dec 23 10:38:48 PST 2015
I think there are three things to keep in mind:
1. Brent's right that a lot of questions on-list and off-list are
related to MS4W installs. This might be a gross assumption, however,
I don't believe Jeff would bother packaging GeoMOOSE with MS4W if he
wasn't seeing some pattern in the combined usage. Given our
resources, if we are going to put a stake in some documentation then
doing it with MS4W *in mind* is not bad. This is *not exclusionary*.
2. Jim and I will be continuing to do Linux and Mac support. I am
getting out of the Mac game as my primary machine but will still have
them around in the house for testing. We are both *far more useful*
on a POSIX-flavoured OS than we are on Windows. I'll probably be
moving to create some sort of Docker environment for myself as I don't
like all the crap needed to support the PHP being a part of my base
install. If I do that then there is every chance we could have a
docker image that is ready-to-run with Mapscript, PHP, Apache, and
TinyOWS. In my opinion that is probably the most 'modern' and
accessible option for those who are into the Linux scene.
3. Regarding, "Fully embrace the MS4W Approach," to clarify my #1 and
previous emails:
- Users need a consistent place to start and (most? many?) users are
starting from MS4W.
- I believe simply *dropping* unnecessary wording and text from any
diagrams makes them more clear and doesn't cause unintended confusion.
It also makes them more re-usable. Having blocks showing "web server
(Apache, IIS, etc.)" makes sense but saying "MS4W Webserver -- Apache"
gets too specific and belies the point.
- *If* we start with a MS4W-centric set of Tutorial docs (which, yay!
go for it!) I will take it upon myself to "port them" to OSGeoLIve or,
generically, a Unix-like system. And while OSGeoLive is an active
project, a great showcase, and used heavily come FOSS4G time, I'm not
sure how many people would honestly go from a Live-disc to a
production environment. We know *for a fact* that people will take
MS4W from a desktop-installed curiosity and put it on bigger hardware
to serve hundreds of daily users.
I really do appreciate the investment in time and effort from Bob and
Brent on this one!!! We've really needed a landing place for new users
for a long time and I'd like to see it be something sustainable!
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Basques, Bob (CI-StPaul)
<bob.basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Geomoose-users mailing list
> Geomoose-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-users
More information about the Geomoose-users
mailing list