Project roadmap

Topics: SharpMap Project
Coordinator
Sep 9, 2006 at 5:51 PM
I've made a couple of changes based on conversations with SharpGIS on how to move forward with releases in the near term.

I added a new release - 2.0 Alpha - and reassigned most of the new features (rendering engine, updatable providers and indexes, WFS) to that release. For 1.0, implementing DE-9IM for manipulating spatial relationships (topology) is still a high priority.

I've also made adding unit tests and code coverage a priority for 1.0 Release. That should both tighten up the code and provide a good baseline to build 2.0 on.

Feedback would be great.
Developer
Sep 10, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Looks really good. Now we just need someone willing to give another go at the DE9-IM implementation (The Dimensionally Extended 9-Intersection Model).

Any students out there who wants to learn what is going on under the hood of all GIS systems today, and at the same time see your projectwork put to use? I think this would be a really good subject for a thesis.
Coordinator
Sep 15, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Hi, Erik!

I'm on vacation in Berlin/Germany up to sunday.
The the next week i will have a look at your
contributions.

Please start a wiki page for our "Roadmap" with all
things we pointed out at IRC and your shapefile writer too.

At the moment i try to adapt the DE-9IM of Nts into SharpMap, but it is blowing of the code a lot.

Perhaps, we should divide SharpMap into several
modules.
- SharpMap.Core
- SharpMap.Data.Extensions
- SharpMap.Geometries

What are you thinking?
BR
/Christian
Coordinator
Sep 18, 2006 at 4:52 PM
<snip>
Perhaps, we should divide SharpMap into several
modules.
- SharpMap.Core
- SharpMap.Data.Extensions
- SharpMap.Geometries
</snip>

This has some appeal. I could definately agree with factoring out the data provider code into another module - there is a good set of common type definition which could go into that module, and of which other providers could make use. I'm writing a provider for Sybase (adding the OpenGIS SQL tables), and need to copy from existing code, rather than reference it.

I can see the same thing for SharpMap.Rendering. This could be broken out, and that way DirectX engines don't need to be loaded onto a webserver.

I'm a bit more puzzled about the idea of SharpMap.Geometries. Are you thinking of putting the topological functionality here? I have a hard time seeing how this could be factored out from Core...
Coordinator
Sep 18, 2006 at 5:40 PM
Also, this reminds me that I think that not including provider projects (PostGIS for example) under SharpMap isn't in the best interests of the project as a whole... was there some good reasons for this I'm not aware of?
Developer
Sep 19, 2006 at 9:23 PM
PostGIS and the other excluded providers rely on external libraries. This is why they are seperate.
Coordinator
Sep 19, 2006 at 10:20 PM
One way of handling this is just to have the requirement that the developer have those libraries installed. This is fairly common, even in the .Net space.