[Mapbender-dev] OpenLayers integration

[Arnulf Christl]

Sebastian Schmitz wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> for some time now there has been discussion about integration of 
> OpenLayers into Mapbender as map tool box. Discussion started last year 
> in September at FOSS4G in a meeting room in Lausanne. Interest was great 
> to do this and it seemed a good idea. Then nothing really happened.

Hi,
a lot happened internally in Mapbender in preparation for the OL integration. 
http://www.mapbender.org/index.php/Open_layers

But before this can actually happen some internal redisgn has to take place
http://www.mapbender.org/index.php/Redesign

> The discussion has been revived recently through OGC expressing strong 
> interest for KML in Mapbender, so they included that within OWS-5. As 
> OpenLayers provides (basic) KML support already, the idea is to take 
> this opportunity and integrate OpenLayers into Mapbender and then do the 
> KML work within OpenLayers. Within OWS-5 other porjects will advance KML 
> support in OpenLayers (Mapbuilder, TOPP), which may/should/will become 
> the OpenSource KML library of choice.

For the context of the OWS-5 testbed the Mapbender project could alternatively also provide for implementation experience from a different perspective. We will discuss this in a live meeting in Bonn on Monday next week (right before the IRC meeting). We can continue the discussion there. 

> Now, I am not really a developer and would like you devs to discuss 
> this, so we can decide on the issue. 

> Do we want this? 

Yes, but we should carefully evaluate on how we want to do it. One user brought up the idea to use Mapbender as the web based configuration tool to write OpenLayers applications. This way it would be easy for a Mapbender portal operator to deploy custom slippy-map applications with OpenLayers without the need to manually write a JavaScript files. ALl the service information and even the authentication and authorization modules of Mapbender could be used. 

> What are advantages of having an independently maintained map toolbox?

It seems like OL is growing to be one of the main map window libraries hence it will experience steady growth and receive a lot of support which results in good, stable software.

> What are pitfalls? 

Once OL is fat and slow (like Mapbender already is) it will be more difficult to implement new functionality because so many depend on the existing one. 

> How much effort will be required? 

Hard to estimate, we will have to wait for the report from the Redesign Workgroup.

> Can we have a partial integration? Can we not?

Maybe a partial integration would be something like the idea discussed above? 

> Cheers
> 
> Sebastian


Regards, Arnulf.