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

Steve Lime Steve.Lime at dnr.state.mn.us
Wed Jan 14 13:11:44 EST 2009


Just an FYI, there is an effort underway to build a collection of MapServer samples to replace
or compliment the MapServer Itasca demo. A simple version of Itasca is in fact a sample. These
are really meant to demonstrate succinct functional elements (e.g. attribute bindings or inline
features) and are generally not using any particular client. I am using OL for a couple of them
(e.g. scale dependent display) simply because it's so darn easy to do and there's nothing to 
install.

That said, the structure of the samples interface is such that samples can exist outside of what 
I'm developing so I can point to sample interfaces hosted by other folks (e.g. GeoMoose, p.mapper, 
OL and so on).

Steve


>>> On 1/14/2009 at 11:42 AM, in message
<f029597e0901140942s521eef3fyf060cc996bfba51d at mail.gmail.com>, John Smith
<jayzee.smith at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-users mailing list
> mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org 
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users


More information about the mapserver-users mailing list