Re: [pmapper-users] roadmap and acl

[Armin Burger]

On 20/03/2012 19:45, Chris Jackson wrote:
> Hi all,
> I like the direction development is going with v5. My tuppence of wishes
> would be extension of ways to select data - either buffers, user drawn
> polygons, or even simple user uploaded polygon shapefiles.

query by polygon is already implemented in the core code, one just needs 
implement the OL control, which should be straightforward.

Then I guess
> further use of other OL functionality - editing etc.

One of the reasons for incorporating OL is to allow anybody to directly 
make use of OL sample code like edit controls, etc, without the need to 
develop it from scratch. This you should find in some OL examples.

armin

--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
___
pmapper-users mailing list
pmapper-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pmapper-users

Re: [pmapper-users] roadmap and acl

[Chris Jackson]

Hi all,
I like the direction development is going with v5. My tuppence of wishes
would be extension of ways to select data - either buffers, user drawn
polygons, or even simple user uploaded polygon shapefiles. Then I guess
further use of other OL functionality - editing etc.

Appreciate this maybe beyond what PMapper's objectives are trying to
deliver, but it is such a useful framework to build upon.

Cheers
Chris
On 17 Mar 2012 10:21, "Armin Burger"  wrote:

> On 16/03/2012 12:50, G. Allegri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > the idea to use Openlayers could give a new boost to Pmapper, which I
> find
> > one of the best "technical oriented" WebGIS out there.
> > This could give a chance to develop more on it. It's a long time I'm
> > thinking to an admin API, for an example, but was discouraged to invest
> on
> > it by the lack of some foundamental features for nowday's WebGIS
> platforms,
> > with OL being the biggest.
>
> well, there are frameworks like GeoExt that might already have offered
> this type of functionality. Did you ever try them?
>
> > Armin, do you have any plans about it? Will you put it out when things
> are
> > done, or will you share the code while working on it?
>
> So far quite some parts are still a bit under construction with frequent
> and possibly still deeper changes. It was not always easy to understand
> the sometimes strange logic of OL, and the OL mailing list was of no
> help for very specific questions (I practically never got any reply). So
> I was sometimes close to abandon the idea of using OL. Now I found most
> ways for workarounds, and the map navigation and interaction tools are
> mainly working.
>
> I'm currently in the final stage of rewriting the old and badly
> structured query code of p.mapper, this might be even possible to port
> it back to the p.mapper 4 (the new one will be version 5). The query
> stuff is again a bit of a mess, this time from the side of MapServer.
> But the new query classes should allow more easily to write you own
> functionality for the query result display if needed since this is now
> decoupled from actually getting the query result.
>
> A missing part is also the printing where I will mainly have to
> investigate how to print tiled layers that are not available via
> Mapserver (like OSM layers, Google layers will anyway not be allowed to
> be included in printings).
>
> Just to give an idea how the composition of layers from mapserver and OL
> works: You can define as now to have all MS layers (or groups) being
> rendered on a single map image, with or without tiling. Or you can split
> groups of layers into a few blocks, each block is an OL layer (I call
> the OL layers 'olThemes' to avoid too much of naming confusion). The
> combination which layers are rendered together or separately can be done
> in any type of combination. Using tiled layers for the time being will
> require to use the Google spherical mercator projection for the map. I
> cerated 2 new types of new OL layers, one tiled and the other non-tiled.
> Both are based on MapScript and will only work inside a user PHP session.
>
> It will be very likely that the first release version of p.mapper 5 will
> have some very specific functionalities not yet included, and most
> likely also only a few plugins will work already then.
>
> When the code is a bit more stable I will put it on the SVN, depending
> also if anyone is interested in contributing some developments. I might
> put a preliminary beta version out in the next week or so, so that
> people can have a look at it on their own installation.
>
> A first draft version (already 2 weeks old) is available at
> http://www.pmapper.net/demo/pmapper-5-dev/
> http://www.pmapper.net/demo/pmapper-5-dev/?config=singletile
>
> some new functions beyond OL integrations already implemented are:
> - hierarchical level above categories (called 'domains')
> - more flexible mutual disabling of layers
>
> Do not use IE for it since it will complain about some "console.log()"
> calls.
>
> Hope that helps for now
>
> Armin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks for you precious work,
> > Giovanni
> >
> --
> > This SF email is sponsosred by:
> > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> > ___
> > pmapper-users mailing list
> > pmapper-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pmapper-users
> >
>
>
>
> --
> This SF email is sponsosred by:
> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
> ___
> pmapper-users mailing list
> pmapper-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pmapper-users
>
--
This SF 

Re: [pmapper-users] TOC - Category with only one layer

[Armin Burger]

On 20/03/2012 13:05, Chris forum wrote:
> If I may throw an idea here, that would be to have a separate section
> for 'background' layers that you can select with radio buttons like in
> OpenLayers, in order to have only one of them selected at a time.
>

avoiding this weird separation between base layers and overlays was one 
of the demanding challenges to achieve when incorporating OL... but if 
you want to have it back, just define a category as "Overview Layers" 
and define all layers inside as "mutually disabling". Only difference to 
standard OL is that you will still have checkboxes instead of radio buttons.

> If I dare again make some proposals, the following web site (using the
> complicated Mapfish) has some nice GoogleEarth and StreetView
> functionalities : http://sitn.ne.ch/

You should be able then to write your plugin that does this, maybe it 
even exists already for OL...

Armin

--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
___
pmapper-users mailing list
pmapper-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pmapper-users

Re: [pmapper-users] TOC - Category with only one layer

[Chris forum]

Thanx for your answer.
I will live with it for now, and play with the files you pointed out if I
find some time to. But you are right, logic/intuition may vary a lot from
one person to another!

In the meanwhile I have tested pmapper 5-dev demo, looks very promising!
I noticed you have created a new level in the tree with the so called
'Domains', great!
I also saw that one have to choose from the Blue Marble layer or the OSM
one, both can not being displayed together, which makes sense.
If I may throw an idea here, that would be to have a separate section for
'background' layers that you can select with radio buttons like in
OpenLayers, in order to have only one of them selected at a time.

If I dare again make some proposals, the following web site (using the
complicated Mapfish) has some nice GoogleEarth and StreetView
functionalities : http://sitn.ne.ch/

Thx again for the good job!
BaK


On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Armin Burger wrote:

> On 16/03/2012 16:35, Chris forum wrote:
>
>> Sorry, sent it too fast... here again without errors:
>>
>> Sometimes there is a category that contains only one layer, e. g. in this
>> example:
>> http://www.pmapper.net/demo/**p42/map_default.phtml?winsize=**
>> medium&language=en&config=**default
>>
>> Category: Nature-spatial Data / Layer: Rivers
>>
>> For cases like that, is there an easy way to only display the layer in the
>> tree, in 1 line without the +/-?
>>
>
> There is in my opinion no easy way, I would even say it could be quite
> cumbersome to achieve this. You will need to modify pm.toc.js and toc.php
> and try to understand the logic there. And
>
>
>
>> That would simplify/shorten the TOC and make it more logical I think.
>>
>
> Which display is more logical than the other depends on the individual
> perception. It took me some time to set it up in the way as it currently is
> since this was what I personally found most intuitive, but of course this
> may vary much... ;-)
>
>
>  Indeed, if the layer has been collapsed while being deactivated, it is not
>> displayed into the map even if the category has got the check mark, which
>> could be confusing.
>>
>
> You can deactivate the checkboxes for the categories, this will remove a
> functionality that could be handy, but also a source of confusion.
>
> armin
>
--
This SF email is sponsosred by:
Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure
___
pmapper-users mailing list
pmapper-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pmapper-users