[Qgis-developer] Re: feature freeze: symbol levels in rule-based rendering / OSM

Wed Apr 6 20:48:48 EDT 2011

Hi,
On top of the patch mentioned below, I made a patch implementing 
most of wonder's suggestion made at
 http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/2832#comment:9 , namely "switching
first rule/all rules, enabling symbol levels". I tested it during one
week on r15538 and release it against r15676.
This gives new rendering possibilities with the rule-based renderer,
including easy and beautiful on the fly rule-based rendering of OSM
maps, with results similar to mapnik and osmarender.
Mayeul

Le lundi 21 mars 2011 à 23:06 +0100, Mayeul Kauffmann a écrit :
> Hi,
> Tim wrote:
> > Mayeul we will apply this after we branch for release (probably around
> > 1 april).
> Great!
> In the meantime, to test the compatibility of the symbol levels patch
> with commits made since r15217, I just proposed a  patch against r15538
> adding symbol levels in rule-based renderer (on top of r15217). It is a
> minimalist patch which adds a quick fix for symbol levels and a
> "Priority column" (instead of "ID" in previous patch) which is necessary
> to know what is the, er... priority of rules when symbol levels are used
> (since only first matched rule will be used).
> It's there:  http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/3222
> patch_on_r15538-rbr_with_symbol_levels.diff
> 
> I'm testing it and I'll put on trac any issue I might find.
> Regards,
> Mayeul
> 
> Le samedi 19 mars 2011 à 09:40 +0200, Tim Sutton a écrit :
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Mayeul Kauffmann
> > <mayeul.kauffmann at free.fr> wrote:
> > > Hi all
> > > As Tim suggested to bring a patch to a developer's attention, I recall
> > > here what he suggested (and Marco's positive comment): "to apply [my]
> > > patch to the release branch and keep trunk untouched."
> > > (In fact: it's Marco's patch proposed 7 months ago, see
> > > http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/2832#comment:3 )
> > >
> > 
> > Mayeul we will apply this after we branch for release (probably around
> > 1 april). Please remind me if you see the branch notice go out and you
> > havent seen your patch applied.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Tim
> > 
> > 
> > > This does not prevent us to work towards SLD in the long term. Still,
> > > for now, all NG renderers (Single symbol, categorized, graduated) have a
> > > working "Symbol level" button, except the rule-based renderer; the patch
> > > will give similar behaviour on all renderers.
> > > It "kills" me to write this, but if those few lines of the patch are not
> > > applied, IMHO it is better to remove the "Symbol levels" button from the
> > > rule-based renderer (because users will try to use it otherwise).
> > >
> > > Mayeul
> > >
> > > On Friday 04 March 2011 at 16:33 +0100, Marco Hugentobler wrote:
> > >> > we could
> > >> > apply your patch to the release branch and keep trunk untouched for
> > >> > Martin to implement it in his preferred way.  Martin, Marco that sound
> > >> > ok for you?
> > >>
> > >> +1
> > >>
> > >> Marco
> > >>
> > >> Am Freitag, 4. März 2011, um 05.42:09 schrieb Tim Sutton:
> > >> > Hi Mayeul
> > >> >
> > >> > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:01 PM,  <mayeul.kauffmann at free.fr> wrote:
> > >> > > Hi,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > (This follows this thread: Branch status for merge and release timeline
> > >> > > proposal)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks for you answer Tim! I found the clarification useful and I
> > >> > > appreciate your sense of diplomacy. Here are a few thoughts.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You wrote: "I agree the items in your list should get attention"
> > >> > > Just to make sure: most of the list (including links to my patch) was
> > >> > > written by users Neumann and Anitagraser.
> > >> >
> > >> > Acknowledged thanks.
> > >> >
> > >> > > Among those fixes, we are several developers to believe that symbol
> > >> > > levels in rule-based rendering should be fixed, even with a temporary
> > >> > > fix. A fix was proposed in August 2010 by mhugent, see:
> > >> > > http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/2832#comment:8
> > >> > > His patch was applied except for the symbol level lines (about 10 lines
> > >> > > of code).
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I made improvements to this code and my patch was somehow applied, again
> > >> > > without the few symbol level lines of code.
> > >> > > http://trac.osgeo.org/qgis/ticket/3222#comment:15
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I agree with Martin that it would be better to have a final solution than
> > >> > > an incomplete one for symbol levels. But since the rule-> based
> > >> > > rendering is currently in an incomplete state, why put it in the
> > >> > > renderer stable release anyway? I believe symbol levels make > a huge
> > >> > > difference in rendering lines. With them, I have a rendering similar to
> > >> > > Osmarender or Mapnik in QGIS which gives QGIS a > definitive bonus with
> > >> > > respect to many other desktop or server GIS.
> > >> >
> > >> > Ok I had a read through the ticket. Martin is the maintainer of this
> > >> > code so while I share your desire for symbol levels in rule based
> > >> > renderer, I think we should give Martin the space to implement the
> > >> > solution in his way if he has a better approach. I know Martin has  a
> > >> > lot of other things on his plate so lets give him some time. If coming
> > >> > up to the release we need to apply a band aid fix (that doesnt break
> > >> > any compatibility) to get 1.7 out with symbol level support, we could
> > >> > apply your patch to the release branch and keep trunk untouched for
> > >> > Martin to implement it in his preferred way. Martin, Marco that sound
> > >> > ok for you?
> > >> >
> > >> > > (for a rendering sample, see:
> > >> > > http://www.qgis.org/qgiswiki/images/f/fd/Lago_di_varese.png
> > >> > > which is compared with the OSM python plugin rendering here:
> > >> > >  http://www.qgis.org/wiki/Using_OpenStreetMap_data  )
> > >> >
> > >> > Very nice - I also have someone working on building rendering rules
> > >> > for OSM here at Linfiniti and have been reading your notes and the
> > >> > discussions on OSM symbology here on this list with interest.
> > >> >
> > >> > > Also, QGIS rule-based rendering is definitely more powerful than what you
> > >> > > can achieve on ArcGIS with queries and scale-related visibility, but
> > >> > > ArcGIS users who need symbol levels will not want QGIS's rule-based
> > >> > > rendering.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Ideally we should be able to have any combinations of the following:
> > >> > > -symbol levels ON or OFF
> > >> > > -apply first matching rule or apply all rules
> > >> > > (That's 4 combinations)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > With a few lines take from any of the two patches proposed by mhugent and
> > >> > > myself, we can have either: -symbol levels OFF and apply all rules
> > >> > > -symbol levels ON and apply first matching rule
> > >> > >
> > >> > > With the current version (since r15217) we only have:
> > >> > > -symbol levels OFF and apply all rules
> > >> >
> > >> > Yup those all sound useful - the idea being that you could create a
> > >> > sequence of symbol layers based on rules offers powerful
> > >> > possibilities. By the way did you figure out the correct syntax for
> > >> > the modulus operator? I was trying to make a simple rule to make every
> > >> > contour % 100m a bit thicker. Eventually I settled for contour in
> > >> > (100,200,300....) which is ugly but worked...
> > >> >
> > >> > > Adding the extra capability provided in the two proposed patches does not
> > >> > > prevent working later on having the missing two combinations: -symbol
> > >> > > levels ON and apply all rules
> > >> > > -symbol levels OFF and apply first matching rule
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What do you think?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yes personally I would like to see these options too.
> > >> >
> > >> > Best regards
> > >> >
> > >> > Tim
> > >> >
> > >> > > Regards,
> > >> > > Mayeul
> > >> > >
> > >> > > ----- Mail Original -----
> > >> > > De: "Tim Sutton" <lists at linfiniti.com>
> > >> > > À: "Mayeul Kauffmann" <mayeul.kauffmann at free.fr>
> > >> > > Cc: "qgis-developer" <qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org>
> > >> > > Envoyé: Mardi 1 Mars 2011 21h44:05 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne
> > >> > > / Rome / Stockholm / Vienne Objet: Re: [Qgis-developer] Branch status
> > >> > > for merge and release timeline proposal
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Hi Mayeul
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Mayeul Kauffmann
> > >> > >
> > >> > > <mayeul.kauffmann at free.fr> wrote:
> > >> > >> Hi,
> > >> > >> What about open tickets (bug fixes) that are not in branches? What is
> > >> > >> the timeline for them?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > We usually try to make sure there are no show stoppers when we release
> > >> > > and remaining tickets get carried over to next release. I dont think
> > >> > > we will ever be able to be in a situation where there are no open
> > >> > > tickets left at the time of a release.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Now that New Symbology  is the default, I guess
> > >> > >> the following should be fixed before release, or am I missing something?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> http://www.qgis.org/wiki/Switching_from_Old_to_New_Symbology_and_Labelin
> > >> > >> g
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This is a great list / wiki page. The wait / when to release
> > >> > > discussion is one that comes up periodically. I agree the items in
> > >> > > your list should get attention - and no doubt more items will be
> > >> > > raised when people are using symobology-ng by default. However these
> > >> > > are not things I believe we should put a hold on the release for. If
> > >> > > there is a general unhappiness about the situation, we can reinstate
> > >> > > old symbology by default, but if not, lets put what we have out there
> > >> > > for people to test and use, and march on towards 2.0.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Regards
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Tim
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> Thanks for clarification!
> > >> > >> Mayeul
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Le mardi 01 mars 2011 à 09:19 +0200, Tim Sutton a écrit :
> > >> > >>> Hi all especially Martin and Pirmin and those actively working on new
> > >> > >>> features
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> I am just wondering how things are looking in terms of merging
> > >> > >>> branches. Is a merge of threaded rendering + 3d globe on the cards for
> > >> > >>> 1.7 assuming we have a code freeze of around March 15? I'd like to get
> > >> > >>> 1.7 out before the hackfest (oops QGIS Meeting) so was thinking along
> > >> > >>> the lines of :
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> - code freeze 15 march
> > >> > >>> - string freeze 21 march
> > >> > >>> - release branching 1 April (yes I know its a cool date to release the
> > >> > >>> code on :-)
> > >> > >>> - release announcements 7 April (or when packages are available
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Are there any other major features people are working on that should
> > >> > >>> be considered for the release timeline? If the threading + globe
> > >> > >>> branches arent ready we can hold them over till 1.8, though it would
> > >> > >>> be nice to get them out there now to keep all the slathering fans
> > >> > >>> happy!
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Regards
> > >> > >>>
> > >> > >>> Tim
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --
> > >> > > Tim Sutton - QGIS Project Steering Committee Member (Release  Manager)
> > >> > > ==============================================
> > >> > > Please do not email me off-list with technical
> > >> > > support questions. Using the lists will gain
> > >> > > more exposure for your issues and the knowledge
> > >> > > surrounding your issue will be shared with all.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Visit http://linfiniti.com to find out about:
> > >> > >  * QGIS programming and support services
> > >> > >  * Mapserver and PostGIS based hosting plans
> > >> > >  * FOSS Consulting Services
> > >> > > Skype: timlinux
> > >> > > Irc: timlinux on #qgis at freenode.net
> > >> > > ==============================================
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Dr. Marco Hugentobler
> > >> Sourcepole -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
> > >> Churerstrasse 22, CH-8808 Pfäffikon SZ, Switzerland
> > >> marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch http://www.sourcepole.ch
> > >> Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Qgis-developer mailing list
> > >> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> > >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-developer mailing list
> Qgis-developer at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer