Arnulf, "Managed Web Mapping Application Framework" That's pretty good. I've been looking for a description just about like that. :c) While we haven't got the specific capability of building a client from the Server in place (yet) the MOOSE frame work certainly is intended to do so. As you described already, the biggest piece to that is the authentication part. We can use a XML descrition though to describe the GUI elements, and a combination of HTML and JS to describe the interface (Overall GUI). All services are implemented as WMS already, we're working on getting a common configuration standard at this point as well as WFS add-ons. Another big need for us is a CAD importer, which is where the WFS comes in. I already have a WMS for AutoCAD working (theirs sucks, big time) and am working on a WFS capability as well. This additional Client looks like it's going to need some extra config work on the WFS side in order to keep all our currently stored data intact. Looks doable, just time consuming to come up with the extra data standards. What we really need to focus on is automating the Layer configs to work with each type of client and expose the options to the average users in a sane way without requiring them to learn the whole system from top to bottom. MOOSE can handle doing this right now with a XML (MAPBOOK) desription of the layer catalog and Services. Service connections seem to be the bigger aspect missing from most other packages, at least in the way we want to implement. We want to use the Map interface as the main discoverer, not put the map into another system. Too much effort required to keep things working that way. By pulling the services into a MOOSE client, it's much easier to get mutiple services working for the same layer for example. Truth be told, I did look at most of the offerings some time ago, and found that they were coming up short at the time in one area or another. Right now I only have an authenticated access to the WMS services available. BTW, MOOSE can read WMS directly as well. Not completely compliant as of yet, but it does work. I just need to get the MOOSE WIKI out there first. That's my main priority right now. This is also a very part time effort at the moment. bobb
>>> Arnulf Christl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Bob Basques wrote: > > This is a very thought provoking conversation for me too. It's getting > me thinking about how to describe the MOOSE project a bit better and > describe it's strengths. > > bobb Hi Bobb, just because it has not been mentioned yet, talking of diversity... The project Mapbender is a managed web mapping application framework - it is a server to create clients, think of a CMS for spatial data services. . . . . I checked the demo link you sent around. If those maps were published as a WMS service (maybe they are, have a link?) I could whip up a demo site within minutes so that you can have a look around. I guess we will be doing this kind of thing on a big scale at FOSS4G. Might be interesting for you to find out where MOOSE would fit in to potentially "fill a hole". http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/FOSS4G2007_IntegrationShowcase Best regards, Arnulf.
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
