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 [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
