SteveC wrote:
On 2 May 2008, at 12:38, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
Some things don't require referential integreity: selecting ways/nodes
within a bounding box can't hurt the referential integrity of the
database (so long as the code is well-maintained), so the harm in
converting those methods
On Sat, May 03, 2008 at 06:56:40AM +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
SteveC wrote:
On 2 May 2008, at 12:38, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
Some things don't require referential integreity: selecting ways/nodes
within a bounding box can't hurt the referential integrity of the
database (so long as the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2 On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:24:35AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Carden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the fact that it has its own API is a much bigger concern than
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most purposes AS3 probably is a better language - except for the
fairly major proviso there's no open-source player even in development.
As far as I'm concerned this is quite a key point, although I know
that
Tom Hughes wrote:
Sent: 02 May 2008 9:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] The future of Potlatch
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For most purposes AS3 probably is a better language - except for the
fairly
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 10:25:50AM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote:
OTH I don't know much about AS3 so I can't say whether it's much better in
this regard, but from a quick scan of it, I'd say it was. I think the main
problem is the likely-hood of an opensource player being available for it.
AS3
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[warning - long ponderous e-mail follows!]
Hi all,
A fairly weighty issue concerning the future of Potlatch has arisen,
and I'm completely baffled as to what to do - so I thought I'd ask the
community for thoughts
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 08:35:06AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
To summarise I think we both want the same thing, but you perhaps
think somebody should just sit down and bang an AMF version of the
current XML API and I'm happy with trying to incrementally move
towards that position?
Well, I don't
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 08:35:06AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
To summarise I think we both want the same thing, but you perhaps
think somebody should just sit down and bang an AMF version of the
current XML API
Richard
I'm sorry you think informal private chats are now in the public
domain, I'll keep it in mind.
All
This is not quite what happened.
For a start, this doesn't really have anything to do with CloudMade,
it started a long time before that. It's about the maintainability and
quality
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:27:38PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
I won't pretend that I know nearly as much about the rails code as you
do, but it seems like some of these would be better abstracted out. If
that were the case -- that is, that all the Rails code on the site used
the same
Thanks for some really helpful and interesting responses. (Thanks
especially to Tom C for a very valuable perspective.)
-- API
The API has come up a lot. I've said before and will happily restate
now that I think it would be great to get Potlatch talking Rails on
the serverside, rather
-- AS1 / AS3
Dave - I think your definition of donkey balls might be different to
mine. ;) Or rather, when you've been sucking horse balls for several
years then donkey balls don't seem very different.
Er, I should probably rephrase that.
Yeah, I don't think the relative merits of various
From: Tom Hughes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In part it's an entirely selfish attitude in as much as that Adobe
show no signs of wanting to support flash on 64 bit linux which means
that I am left having to rely on the free players or struggling to
use the 32 bit flash plugin via a kludgy wrapper
Hi,
[warning - long ponderous e-mail follows!]
I don't really see much of a problem with mutliple Flash editors being
available. If they get something done that's better than Potlatch, why
then it's good for all is it not?
In general I have a problem with the built-in uniqueness of Potlatch
or
2008/5/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
CloudMade (Steve and Nick's VC-funded company set up to commercialise
OSM data, www.cloudmade.com) wants to commission a new online Flash
editor for OSM. It would, I believe, probably be written by developers
from Stamen Design
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Carden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the fact that it has its own API is a much bigger concern than
it being written in AS 1.0 is. If Potlatch was using the main API,
development of API-backed features in Potlatch could be shared by
other editors
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:24:35AM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom Carden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think the fact that it has its own API is a much bigger concern than
it being written in AS 1.0 is. If Potlatch was using the main API,
development of
18 matches
Mail list logo
