[mapserver-users] mapserver-dev list? (was: XML mapfile?)

[Steve Lime]

>> How about a mapserver-dev list where all new development questions
are
>> discussed without disturbing regular users?

> Sounds like a good idea, but not being a developer,  my vote
shouldn't 
> carry a lot of weight.

Developers and power users, nuts and bolts stuff.

> Regarding all the hoopla over XML; I've got some questions, or maybe

> reservations. I'm pretty ignorant of XML, but sometimes a little
ignorance 
> enhances ones objectivity, so here goes. It seems generally accepted
that 
> XML is probably slower than the current map file format and that you
need 
> to serialize the DOM. A CGI program can't hold this serialized object
in 
> memory, so you're going to have to write it out as a new map file, or

> abandon CGI in favor of JSP or a similar technology, no?

I don't think CGI is going anywhere. The current lexer might be able to
be tweaked
to read XML mapfiles in addition to the native format. The advantage of
XML would
be all the 3rd party tools you could use to manipulate and validate. I
don't think it 
matters how you load the XML, it's more that you can do it. 

One thought I've had for some time involves some sort of "compiled"
mapfile, screw 
all these text files and compile to a binary format. Validation would
happen at that
point so the lexer could be by-passed fixing so threading issues.

I ain't gonna touch the rest of this message... <g>

> In either case the disadvantages would seem to out weight the
advantages: 
> if you write out a new map file, then all you done is written a 
> preprocessor for XML. Why not write one for French, too? <g> If you
abandon 
> CGI in favor of JSP, then you end up with A**IMS, which you can
already buy 
> off the shelf.

> And for all of that, what have you really gained in terms of
functionality? 
> The existing CGI mapserver is fast, flexible, portable and easy to 
> configure. Before someone suggests that it be remolded in the image
of 
> A**IMS, they should take time to get to know mapserver. If it still
doesn't 
> meet their needs, or if CGI is just entirely too retro, then go with

> mapscript, where, as was stated previously, "the sky is the limit".

> Of all the arguments in favor of XML that have been throw out in the
last 
> couple days, the only one that hold any water in my bucket is the 
> possibility of enhanced WMS compatibility. The rest of it sounds like
a 
> desire to push a stolid work horse into a trendy new wrapper.

> Rich

Steve

Stephen Lime
Data & Applications Manager

Minnesota DNR
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-297-2937