Bug 1957, a solution... (sort of)

[John Novak]

I suggest that the Mapserver team consider developing close 
relationships with the owning developer(s) of
whatever engine(s) is (are) considered core technology for the product.  
I think it would be ideal is one or more
Mapserver developers take ownership of rendering engine internals and 
develop expertise to reduce risk to the Mapserver
project should a renderer be orphaned.

On the AGG front, I have some code compiling, but have not yet 
successfully rendered any pixels ;-(

I'd expect some results in the next few day, though.

JN

Steve Lime wrote:

>I think Frank is correct on both counts. Rendering quality is only one
>reason to
>look at alternatives. The alternatives aren't perfect either and suffer
>from too 
>much reliance on a single gifted developer.
>
>That said, I've always thought a GD engine would continue to be a part
>of 
>MapServer. It does work well in general and meets the needs of most
>users. 
>
>Steve
>
>  
>
>>>>Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam at POBOX.COM> 11/13/2006 3:14:30 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>Kralidis,Tom [Burlington] wrote:
>  
>
>>How does this relate to talk of using alternatives graphic rendering
>>engines (cairo, etc.) in lieu of GD?
>>    
>>
>
>Tom,
>
>One view is that the lack of maintenance of GD is another reason to
>push
>to a new rendering engine that is more vital.
>
>An alternate view might be that our community taking on maintenance of
>GD
>would give us the opportunity to improve it with better rendering
>quality
>functions to serve our needs, moderating our need for other rendering
>engines.
>
>Best regards,
>  
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20061113/94274326/attachment.html