[GRASS-dev] discussion: replacing ps.map

[Sören Gebbert]

Hello Jachym,

Jachym Cepicky schrieb:
> Hallo,
> 
> while ps.map is nice tool for creating hard copy maps in GRASS, it is
> not sufficient for some more complicated tasks and correct me if I'm
> wrong, there is no _real_ maintainer of it's code, who would be able
> to write new functions for it.

AFAICT, there are no real maintainer for many raster and vector modules. Several
modules should be improved/fixed (v.buffer, r.stats ...) and they produces some times wrong output.
So should we remove those modules?

I think not.

> 
> Now, when new wxPython GUI is stepping forward, I'm thinking about,
> how to write future GRASS mapcomposer.

I'm not sure if you are able to implement the whole functionality of ps.map
in short time. Why not looking at the code of ps.map and improve it?
If the code is not maintainable then there would be a reason to implement it again.

> 
> I see two interesting tools in today's FOSS4G world, which could be
> used as back end for new Mapcomposer, and which would so replace
> functionality of ps.map:
> 
> 1) UMN MapServer
> 2) GMT

I see no reason why ps.map and interfaces to MapServer or GMT are not able
coexistent together?
Next question is: why produce additional dependencies in grass to create a simple ps map?

> 
> MapServer
> -------------
> UMN MapServer is far known tool, which has well documented
> configuration file and large community. I suppose, most of the
> GRASS-users are already familiar with it. MapServer produces nice
> graphical output in desired resolution and format. I is possible to
> use PDF as output format:
> http://mapserver.gis.umn.edu/docs/howto/pdf-output Tasks, like label
> placement and so on are already solved in MapServer. GRASS would
> became also a GUI for MapServer configuration file. It is possible to
> access GRASS (vectors and rasters) from MapServer (both are using
> gdal).
> 
> Size (ubuntu package): 7548kB + python-mapscript 1500 kB
> 
> GMT
> ------
> Sorry, I do not know much about GMT. I just know, this is a tool,
> which is able to create nice maps and there are already some bindings
> for GRASS. I would say, it has not as large community as MapServer
> has.
> 
> Size (ubuntu package): 9904 kB
> 
> Both solutions are introducing new dependency. The benefit would be
> "outsourcing" of our efforts. Why to reinvent a wheel, if there are
> already tools, which are able to produce nice maps, tested and used?
> 
> What do you think? Any experience with some of this tools? I would
> vote for MapServer.

I would vote to improve ps.map and to create interfaces to GMT.

Best regards
Soeren

> 
> Jachym