Hi Lester,
Lester Caine wrote:
Tyler Mitchell wrote:
On December 18, 2005 00:05, Lester Caine wrote:
I'm not quite sure how we ended talking about Autodesk, I was just
making the point that whether MapServer code is available through UMN
or a foundation (or somewhere else) is really a moot point for me. Of
course UMN and everyone else involved have their own best interests in
mind, but that doesn't mean they are exclusively self-focused, we know
that it is not true.
It was more a matter of WHICH MapServer ;)
Are we talking about the engine that currently is called MapServer and
providing a framework for supporting that ( which personally I would
prefer ) or Junior MapServer which is tied up with a product that is not
MapServer and will not run any current MapServer data.
As Tyler pointed out - this is for management of the MapServer Cheetah
(the original) project.
MapServer is surrounded and supported by major financial contributions
and professional developer time that neither you and I pay for. This
is why we need to have a group manage the bigger picture project
related affairs and not just leave it to chance, so that the
companies, contributors and users can work collectively in a slightly
more formal manner. At this point, we are not talking about Autodesk
or the foundation or any other product, we are talking about the
MapServer project and how best to move forward.
MapServer as an entity in it's own right is in a strong position. Some
of us are just concerned that the 'appearance' of an 'new' MapServer is
a problem so HAS Autodesk agreed to drop the name. If not then we need
to have a different discussion.
Making MapServer Cheetah's position as strong as possible now and for
the future is the responsibility of the significant contributors to the
MapServer project (both technical and non-technical).
One of the decisions that will need to be made is if a shared brand
strengthens the original MapServer technology.
I continue to believe that it is the right choice for two principal reasons:
1. There will be two codebases for map serving via two products -- but
if you look under the hood you realize they already share a lot of
components (proj, swig, geos, etc..) and will likely share more in the
future. A shared name represents the commitment to work together to
advance both technologies in an open and inclusive way.
2. Why create competition between projects when it's not neccessary? I
want to tell people to use the best technology for the problem at hand
... sometimes MapServer AA, sometimes MapServer BB, sometimes maybe a
combination of both. The two projects may evolve over time to fill
different, complementary needs. If adoption of open source technology
grows -- that should be good for all open source projects right?
Even if it has nice new tools, I already have an 'Enterprise'
interface into MapServer and don't need the distractions that an
alternative it is creating :(:(
Choice is usually considered a good thing Lester! :) And this new
choice on the block would have come onto the scene regardless of any
hopes of working together.
Firebird has a large selection of third party tools, but they all target
a single project ( now ). The period when there were different
development plans and split projects was a drain on resources.
No matter what -- there are going to be two open source map serving
projects (regardless of what you call them) so nothing will change that.
Absolutely no one has to or should switch technologies unless they think
it makes sense.
And there is no reason to think third party tools for MapServer Cheetah
will not continue to be developed.
Even just drafting this letter is a distraction that I could do
without :(
Really? I hope it is worth the time to discuss and debate the ideas,
so that we can all have some confidence in moving forward. Everyone's
opinion about the MTSC taking on more responsibility is important to
have at this point.
But we need to know where we are going before we can have a productive
discussion. And if Autodesk fits into that road map then the rules change?
A few facts, regardless of these discussions:
1. At some point in 2006 there will be an open source project that will
be the home for the web mapping technology that Autodesk is donating to
an arms-length entity.
2. That entity will be open to other open source projects.
So I guess you could say the landscape has changed -- but MapServer
Cheetah project remains, and remains strong. But we can't rest on our
laurels -- we have to keep working on making it strong for the future.
That's why this discussion is so important - to make sure the best
possible decisions are made for the interest of this projects and the
many individuals and organizations who contribute to and use the technology.
Dave
