[mapserver-dev] GeoServer superseeding MapServer in Europe?

[Stephen Woodbridge]

Lime, Steve D (DNR) wrote:
> I think the TinyOWS - MapServer collaboration, combination or
> whatever holds promise. I'm curious what others think. I know it was
> thrown around briefly some time ago. Personally I'm keen on
> broadening developer interest...

Steve,

In the interest of broadening developer interest and widening the stack, 
I think the work Assefa has done to integrate tilecache support directly 
into mapserver is very cool. This allows simple configuration of a 
tilecache capability directly into mapserver so users that need that 
capability can turn it on without the need to learn, configure and 
deploy another vertical stack. I would love to see support for this in 
6.0. I think it is probably a better performance solution also, because 
requests are just handled directly and not forwarded to another process 
to  generate and chop the metatile. I missed the NY code sprint where I 
understand Assefa presented it but I hope Assefa will write it up as an RFC.

-Steve W

> Steve
> 
> ________________________________________ From:
> mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Courtin
> [olivier.courtin at oslandia.com] Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 6:49 AM 
> To: MapServer Dev List Subject: Re: [mapserver-dev] GeoServer
> superseeding MapServer in Europe?
> 
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Daniel Morissette wrote:
> 
>> Sounds to me like the integrated stack is what made GeoServer win
>> in this case, not the superiority of the software itself.
> 
> +1
> 
> Some (French) big agencies choose the JAVA world (also) for 
> scalability reasons, could be interresting so to communicate on load
> balanced GIS CGI architecture.
> 
> So there's IMO three kind of publics: 1) The ones who want JAVA at
> any price, because it's JAVA 2) The ones who want SDI common
> features, nicely packed, i.e: WMS + WFS-T + CSW (+ CMS) 3) The ones
> who are still able to choose themself and deploy all the atomic apps
> fitting their needs
> 
> INSPIRE next identified issues: - Additional lang parameter handle
> (for instance allow GetCapabilities in several languages) - WFS
> 2.0/ISO 19142 (partial) support  (lot of additionnal stuff like 
> stored procedures and so on)
> 
>> I have to admit that the alternative to "the stack" in the
>> MapServer case is a bit messy, a set of independent tools each with
>> their own paradigms, quirks and config files, and in different
>> languages:
>> 
>> - mapserv.exe (native binary) - MapScript (PHP, Python, or one of
>> the others if you dare) - TinyOWS (for WFS-T, which works great
>> BTW), also a native binary - TileCache (Python) - FeatureServer
>> (Python)
>> 
>> One of the things we've been talking about here (at Mapgears) is 
>> coming up with an integrated set of tools for all of the above with
>> a consistent config file and possibly all native binaries... but
>> that would require some work.
> 
> I could help/participate on TinyOWS/MapServer stuff, we could imagine
> several ways to do it:
> 
> - A meta package with a meta and unified config file - Allow TinyOWS
> to parse/use also existing MapFile - Merging MapServer and TinyOWS in
> a single app
> 
> 
> Let me know,
> 
> -- Olivier _______________________________________________ 
> mapserver-dev mailing list mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev 
> _______________________________________________ mapserver-dev mailing
> list mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev