Voting on RFC 9.

Daniel Morissette dmorissette at DMSOLUTIONS.CA
Tue Jan 31 10:23:27 EST 2006

Howard Butler wrote:
> As an aside, the RFC brings up a different question... is the next 
> MapServer 4.10 or 5.0 (or have I already asked this before)?

I don't think we decided or even discussed that. Personally I was
thiking that by default it should be 4.10 unless there are major changes
to justify 5.0.

Sean Gillies wrote:
> I think your/our time is better spent making mapscript  better and using mapscript with existing Perl/Python/PHP templating  packages, but you know that already. For C, there is Clearsilver
> Maybe a switch to something like clearsilver would be a good 5.0  feature. 

As usual, a very interesting suggestion worth considering. BTW,
sometimes I'm wondering why you are still using MapServer since you
don't seem to be happy with any of the stuff that's existing or being
added to it. Don't take that the wrong way, I don't mean to attack you
at all, I am really trying to understand where you're coming from.

With respect to MapServer templates, I think the simple map-gui-oriented
template mechanism that the CGI offers is a feature of MapServer. That's
one of the things that makes it easy for new users to get running
quickly. Clearsilver appears to offer more, but then if someone needs
more they can go straight to PHP MapScript which already offers the same
as Clearsilver and much more. Well, I guess one key difference is that
the CGI already offers all the magic to handle zooming, panning,
managing queries, etc which you need to reimplement yourself if you use
MapScript... I guess that's one argument in favor of using Clearsilver
in the CGI (or for embedding the PHP interpreter in the CGI to use as
templating system).

My 0.02$

  Daniel Morissette               dmorissette at
  DM Solutions Group    

More information about the mapserver-dev mailing list