[mapserver-users] Mapserver.org sample ...

[Christopher Schmidt]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 09:21:38AM -0600, Bob Basques wrote:
> All,
> 
> The only reason I brought it up at all, was that I was playing around 
> with Openlayers myself this week.
> 
> I pretty much copied the "Demo" from the MapServer website.  Sounds like 
> that was the wrong to go  :c)

Absolutely. The demo on the MapServer site is using a layer that is
generally not needed in any application -- at least not until you're
looking for something that can be deployed without a MapServer 'server'
in the mix.
> Benefits of GeoMoose (Main ones) for the normal user.
> 
>    * Fast (because of MapServer tuning.).  Smaller footprint

The dem on the MapServer main site seems pretty fast to me. Much faster
than any non-cached demo I've seen. Are you saying that GeoMoose has
tuned MapServer t such an extent that it is faster to render images than
it is to serve pre-rendered tiles that demonstrate MapServer's rendering
skills?

>    * Handles many layers with ease.  The limit is the client hardware,
>      and the control is given to the user as to how many to display.

This is a GeoMoose benefit over other client software, but I don't see
how it makes a better demo of MapServer's rendering capabilities.  

>    * The publishing of the data can be distributed, down to the layer
>      level, including the contents of the popups.  Each layer can be
>      managed separately without consequence to the rest of the
>      interface, if it breaks, only that layer is not available.

This is a GeoMoose benefit over other client software, but I don't see
how it makes a better demo of MapServer's rendering capabilities.  

>    * More interface user Control, layer fading, on/off, stacking order,
>      popup on/off.

This is a GeoMoose benefit over other client software, but I don't see
how it makes a better demo of MapServer's rendering capabilities.  

>    * And it's all a client lib as well, just like Openlayers.  Closer
>      than you think.

This is a GeoMoose benefit over other client software, but I don't see
how it makes a better demo of MapServer's rendering capabilities.  

>    * If I had to teach MapServer request strategies, I would use
>      MapServer + GeoMoose + Firebug to do it.  GeoMoose uses the CGI
>      functionality for images, imagemaps, and querying.

I don't knwo what you mean by this, so I can't comment on it.

> Not that I'm trying to defend GeoMoose.  Just wanted to know how to join 
> in on popularizing MapServer.

GeoMoose has many advantages over other client software, if you are
demonstrating client software. The MapServer homepage should be a quick,
simple, easy to use demonstration of MapServer capabilties -- in this
case, a pretty map. I can see an argument that the MapSerer homepage
should use a static image instead, but I think that is a less effective
demonstration of the pretty rendering. I do not think that changing from
OpenLayers givves a better demonstration of *MapServer*'s rendering
capabilties, and I can't imagine a more effective demo could be created
against static content.

> Also, I think our definitions of RESTful are slightly different.  I 
> would say that GeoMoose is very (VERY)  ReSTfully designed.

ReST is "Restructured Text", the format used by the MapServer
documentation. 

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
MetaCarta