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

[C F]

I knew that despite my disclaimers, by mentioning IMS, people would assume 
that's what I'm shooting for.  All I can say is that is much farther off the 
mark than I can possibly tell you.  If you want to have an offline 
discussion about that, I'd be happy to.  This gist of the story is that just 
because a product we don't like uses a particular kind of technology for one 
piece of it's puzzle, doesn't mean we can't benefit from using the same 
technology for our own benefit.  If that was the rule, then I guess 
MapServer wouldn't be a web-base map server... serving up map images using a 
CGI server component and using web browsers as clients.
It seems like a good portion of the conflict comes between people like me 
who are interested in building more dynamic, integrated *applications* vs. 
people who mostly use MapServer as a simple, install-and-go map server....  
That's oversimplifying and not a catch-all, but I'm just trying to focus the 
conversation.  A lot of stuff has been thrown into the mix and is confusing 
and scaring some people off.
I think for starters, maybe we could throw out the performance issue for 
now.  Because, to me, it is something that is very debatable but will not be 
need to be resolved unless we convince people that XML is the way to go 
based on functionality.... if the guys with authority think it's worth a 
shot, THEN we test the feasibility of doing so without losing performance.  
To answer people's concern about serializing XML DOM objects to a file.... 
think of it as compiling your C program.  Are interpreted languages faster 
than compiled languages?  No.  And in as sense it should simplify the 
MapServer code.  It would be harder at first because MapServer is already 
written for the current MapFile structure... but the result would be getting 
rid of custom mapfile parsing classes and use standard XML parsers 
instead... less code... less maintenance.  As additional functionality is 
brought into MapServer that requires additional MapFile structures.... piece 
of cake with XML.  That's progress.
Oops.... I'm straying again... back to the other kind of MapServer users... 
as people have mentioned before, it's certainly possible to still keep the 
existing mapfile format, so that shouldn't be your primary concern.  We're 
simply looking at the possibilty of switching (or adding) a technology that 
is more standardized and flexible rather than continuing to invent 
proprietary methods.
Okay, I keep promising myself I'm not going to be able to convince anybody 
by talking... I need to come up with real, working examples, which I can't 
do if I'm typing email all day.  If I can stay out of here long enough maybe 
I'll come up with something in a few weeks :)



>From: Richard Greenwood <Rich at GreenwoodMap.com>
>To: mapserver-users at lists.gis.umn.edu
>Subject: Re: [mapserver-users] mapserver-dev list? (was: XML mapfile?)
>Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:09:35 -0600
>
>Daniel Morissette wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>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?
>
>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
>
>
>Richard W. Greenwood, PLS
>Greenwood Mapping, Inc.
>Rich at GreenwoodMap.com
>(307) 733-0203
>http://www.GreenwoodMap.com




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com