[mapguide-internals] RFC60 finalization

Sat Oct 24 11:19:38 EDT 2009

MOTIVATION
The important question is how far the color search in the map should go.
To solve the problem of our client we were only looking at areas and 
line styles.
Those are the relevant use cases as they are easily spotted on bordering 
tiles!
(and it is not so computational expensive)

To include all the symbolization data including the referenced symbols 
seems like an computational overkill with no justification.
I am not sure if this should be enabled by default!

Dont forget that we are only tuning a color quantization algorithm for 
the paletted PNG8 /GIF  tiles with this information!!
Its only a gradual improvement of color correctness with limited impact. 

Tom Fukushima wrote:
> I'm trying to understand this...so correct me if I'm wrong.  But it seems that the problem is not with attribute-based stylization.  It's that if someone uses referenced symbols (that is, the LayerDefinition specifies a resource using a resource ID such as Library://mysymbols/a.SymbolDefinition instead of embedded XML for a SymbolDefinition in the LayerDefinition) then a large part of the code will need to be rewritten to support it.
>   
Refactoring is not really necessary. The access points are very limited. 
The string collection is capable of dealing with variables and references.
Only adding functionality for the bits we did not need and did not 
implement!
This is why I don't think this is my responsibility to do this without 
funding, no good test cases (maps), and no client.
> If the above is the case, I understand that we need to make tradeoffs all the time, and this may be where we need to make one.  I think though that it would be advantageous for the current developer to do the requested refactoring now while it is fresh.  Later, if defects are found or refinements (e.g., attribute-based stylization) are done, they could be addressed at that time---and this would be manageable because wouldn't require refactoring large parts of the code.
>
> Could we get some idea of the work that would be required to get support for the referenced symbol definitions?
>  
> Note that I'm not saying it has to be done (but of course I would prefer it to be done), I'm trying to get more information on this sticking point (I believe it is the only one right?) to try to make a judgment.
>
> Tom
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:24 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Subject: Re: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 finalization
>
> It seems to me that we have frequently (too often perhaps?) favoured
> expediency over correctness when faced with resourcing or timeline
> issues.
>
> In this case, I'm in favour of placing the burden of change on the
> whoever deems that it is critical to support pallette reservation for
> attribute-based stylization.
>
> Jason
>
> On 2009-10-23, Walt Welton-Lair <walt.welton-lair at autodesk.com> wrote:
>   
>>> Secondly, it think it is wrong to request the implementation of the new
>>> stylization for such transparent feature addition.
>>> RFC60 works fine for our case, why should we implement something that
>>> does not harm anything but what we do not need?
>>>       
>> The way your code is designed - where it does the work of grabbing the
>> colors inside the MdfModel project - WILL NOT WORK for enhanced stylization
>> in which there are referenced symbol definitions.  It's not possible to load
>> referenced symbols from the resource service from inside the MdfModel code.
>> This is not a minor defect.  It requires that a lot of your code be
>> refactored.  I already explained the problem last March.  Here's the
>> excerpt:
>>
>> "With the new enhanced stylization (RFC 14) the layer definition can
>> reference symbol definitions (in addition to inlining them).  The symbols,
>> of course, define colors which need to be accounted for.  Accessing
>> referenced symbol definitions requires the resource service - we need to get
>> the symbol definition resource from the service.  The MdfModel project
>> (where VectorLayerDefinition is stored) does not have access (nor want
>> access) to the resource service.  So if you want to properly support the new
>> enhanced stylization with your RFC (you should) then we'll probably have to
>> move this ComputeUsedColors method somewhere else.  There's a method -
>> MgMappingUtil::ComputeStylizationOffset - which does something analogous to
>> ComputeUsedColors, so possibly we can add ComputeUsedColors to
>> MgMappingUtil."
>>
>> So even if you don't add code to actually parse colors for enhanced style
>> layers, you need to keep the bigger picture in mind and design your new code
>> so it will be easy to add this support.
>>
>> All along that's the real reason why I wanted you to take a look at this.
>> So that you would come to realize that your current design doesn't fully
>> work as is.
>>
>>
>>     
>>> Open source is more like: Who needs it should code it!
>>>       
>> True, but it's not an excuse for not doing the right thing.  People can't
>> just add anything they want without taking account the bigger picture.
>> That's my take on this.
>>
>>
>> Walt
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
>> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of UV
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 9:03 AM
>> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
>> Subject: [mapguide-internals] RFC60 finalization
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I looked into the RFC60 code again and added some more features to it
>> e.g. finding label colors.
>>
>> However, a redirection of referenced featureIds which would cause a FDO
>> lookup seems prohibitive expensive in this context.
>> I would not like to add this into the code simply as it could increase
>> delay tile computation a lot.
>> So the interesting test here are performance related. Simple unit-tests
>> are not sufficient for this.
>> Creating complex test data to test performance issues is tedious and
>> very badly motivated!!! (specification vs. implementation from same hand)
>>
>> Secondly, it think it is wrong to request the implementation of the new
>> stylization for such transparent feature addition.
>> RFC60 works fine for our case, why should we implement something that
>> does not harm anything but what we do not need?
>> This is not thought along open source paradigms.  Open source is more
>> like: Who needs it should code it!
>> So we should leave this open and the next person that has real test data
>> which doesn't work can post a defect!
>> Very easy process!
>>
>>
>> RFC60 is not trivial at all but it solves a real problem in real maps.
>> To block the inclusion of RFC60 into the code base on those matters is
>> simply wrong in open source terms as it keeps others from using a new
>> working feature.
>> _______________________________________________
>> mapguide-internals mailing list
>> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>> _______________________________________________
>> mapguide-internals mailing list
>> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>>
>>     
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>
>   