question about AGG

[Steve Lime]

While I believe that AGG produces superior output to that of GD it does so at a price. There
are performance hits when creating images with AGG and in consuming (because of file size) 
the higher quality images. If you can live with that then AGG is the better choice.

GD is not being abandoned. Ideally we'd like configurations to work with any backend and there
is ongoing work to make that happen. There shouldn't be that much difference in configuration as
very few parameters (none in 5.0 I think) are AGG specific.

Steve

>>> On 12/31/2007 at 12:56 PM, in message <s778e6fc.097 at snoopy.ci.stpaul.mn.us>,
Bob Basques <Bob.Basques at CI.STPAUL.MN.US> wrote:
> All,
>  
> Is the general consensus that all MapServers should move to AGG output,
> or is this considered more of an optional output at this time?  I mean,
> will it at some point become the default output for MapServer?
>  
> I'm asking mostly based on the differences in the mapfiles required
> between the two formats.  It's a bit troublesome to keep options for
> both in a Mapfile, although, if the AGG output supercedes any older
> definitions in the same MapFile, that would help out considerably.
>  
> I'm setting up some default MapFiles for cartography and wondering
> about what I should be promoting (or not).
>  
> Thanks
>  
> bobb
>