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

[John Smith]

personally don't prefer openlayers except for its drag feature.
openlayers appears tied to py. map rendered using layer = new
OpenLayers.Layer.MapServer( "map", "/cgi-bin/mapserv.exe", {map:
'/openlayers.map'} ); is sometimes jagged at outer zoom (with fewer
dpi). may just need to tune but i agree mapserver.org could feature
many maps - openlayers, geomoose. my 2 cents.
thks, jzs

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Bob Basques
<Bob.Basques at ci.stpaul.mn.us> wrote:

    Chris,

    The biggest piece I see GeoMoose contributing to, is the CGI
calling methods.  GeoMoose makes extensive use of the ImageMap
building and Query Mechanisms available with MapServer, not just the
image rendering.  Although the stacking of the images inside of the
GeoMoose interface is and has been a novel way of presenting the
MapServer contructs (IMO).  OpenLayers does this as well to some
degree, but I believe the GeoMoose interface provides a greater degree
of end user control.

    I'm interested in promoting more than just MapServer image
rendering.  Using Mapserver's CGI capabilities with a Client LIB is
pretty much the way I've used MapServer since starting up with it over
ten years ago.  The imagemap (templating) and Query capabilities are
just as important as the image rendering.  The teaching reference
below, was aimed squarely at the idea of using MapServer via it's CGI
calling structure, which I've always thought should be demo-ified in
some location.  But since MapServer (and it's community) hasn't in the
past had any particular interest in ratifying a client for use, I
never pursued the idea.  But now, with that nice OpenLayers window on
the MapServer page, the sky's the limit so to speak, as far as setting
up demos and including them in the MapServer site, or at least it
seems like it should be.

    :c)

    bobb

    >>> Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt at metacarta.com> 01/14/09 10:37 AM >>>
    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

    _______________________________________________
    mapserver-users mailing list
    mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
    http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users