[mapserver-dev] Motion: change default POSITION AUTO labelling order for point layers

[thomas bonfort]

Daniel,
Given that your -0 vote is not considered a veto, and considering the
comments of other devs, I will go on with the change. For the record, do
you maintain your -0 or have the explanations given made you reconsider
your opinion?

--
thomas

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 19:07, Lime, Steve D (DNR)
<Steve.Lime at state.mn.us>wrote:

>  I don’t think this will be a disruptive change, people shouldn’t have
> gotten used to one way or another (although the regression tests will need
> updating) – it’s magic as far as they’re concerned. The order is not
> documented anywhere but in code. So I’d be ok with the change if you guys
> see a real benefit, +1. As an aside I believe the current order mimicked
> that of ArcPlot circa 1995.****
>
> ** **
>
> Steve****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:
> mapserver-dev-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *On Behalf Of *thomas bonfort
> *Sent:* Friday, March 16, 2012 12:43 PM
> *To:* Bob Basques
> *Cc:* mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org; Daniel Morissette
> *Subject:* Re: [mapserver-dev] Motion: change default POSITION AUTO
> labelling order for point layers****
>
> ** **
>
> Patches graciously accepted :)****
>
> I personally have no incentive in implementing configurable positioning as
> a hardcoded ****
>
> ** **
>
> 6 1 5****
>
> 4 X 3****
>
> 8 2 7****
>
> ** **
>
> suits all my needs.****
>
> ** **
>
> --****
>
> thomas****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 16:30, Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us>
> wrote:****
>
> All, ****
>
> ** **
>
> I know my vote doesn't count as much.  But I'm thinking the same here with
> regard to changing things.  As an alternative to changing things, what's
> the timeline on just setting up the planned MAPFILE controls instead? ****
>
> ** **
>
> bobb ****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
> >>> Daniel Morissette <dmorissette at mapgears.com> wrote:****
>
> I'd say -0 ... I can see in ticket #4249 that the change of order gives
> better results in that case, but I am always hesitant to change a
> built-in behavior that has been around for years as this change could
> cause side-effects for other use cases where the current order is
> better. (I have no such use case in mind, just being overly careful
> because our users don't like when we break backwards compatibility.)
>
> BTW, I love the idea of a mechanism to control the order in the mapfile.
>
> Daniel****
>
>
>
> On 12-03-16 10:19 AM, thomas bonfort wrote:
> > Hi devs,
> >
> > We have tickets 2981, 4242 and 4249 opened to ask for a change in the
> > order which labels are placed around a label point, in order to obtain
> > better quality text placement.
> >
> > http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/2981
> > http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/4242
> > http://trac.osgeo.org/mapserver/ticket/4249
> >
> > While the long-term solution will allow us to configure this order at
> > the mapfile level, I motion that we change this order from
> >
> >
> > 1 7 3
> > 6 X 5
> > 4 8 2
> >
> > to
> >
> > 6 1 5
> > 4 X 3
> > 8 2 7
> >
> > for the 6.2 release.
> > I'll start with my +1.
> >
> > regards,
> > thomas****
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > mapserver-dev mailing list
> > mapserver-dev at lists.osgeo.org
> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-dev
>
> ****
>
> --
> Daniel Morissette
> http://www.mapgears.com/
> Provider of Professional MapServer Support since 2000****
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-dev/attachments/20120320/d728a1fe/attachment-0001.html