Re: [Mapbuilder-proj] cscs/Proj4js

[Mike A. <ma...@dm...>]

Some context for Richard's message below.  We have also determined that 
much of our disagreement in the past stems from the fact that Richard 
viewed cscs as starting a whole new project, whereas I viewed it as the 
evolution of the Proj.js library included in MapBuilder to make it a 
standalone library.

We can really use some input from the community on the architectural 
discussions.  Please comment.

Mike





Richard,

Below I'll use proj4js because it's easier than saying <projectName> but 
I am open to a new name.

Richard Greenwood wrote:
> Mike Adair wrote:
>> Yes, I am always open to discussion.  What code do you want to revert?  
>
> Ideally I'd like to see it revert back to where it was prior to your 
> August 07 changes, and then discuss those changes together. I realize 
> that with the amount of work you have done that is not practical.
>
> I guess before we get into that, the question is whether you will 
> accept input from me on the overall architecture of the project, or if 
> I am just the datum guy.
Yes I will accept input/discussion on the architecture but I don't see a 
whole lot that should be reverted.  The way proj4js works now is pretty 
much the same as cscs worked with the single .transform(src, dest, pt) 
interface.  Some of the things that I think are essential:
- the library must use it's own namespace
- individual 'Proj' objects initialized from the proj4 def string
- allow automatic lookup of def strings from a service like 
spatialreference.org (note that this doesn't preclude an application 
loading a specific set of def files to avoid the automatic lookup)

I'd like to hear specifically what you don't like about the current code 
base and we can discuss.  I would be willing to drop the automatic 
loading of projection class code because the compressed version of the 
library only comes to 57kb which should be acceptable to most.  That 
part was included to minimize that amount of JS code that is loaded.  
And I did intend to remove the .mapXYtoLatLon aliases, but just haven't 
got around to that yet.
>
>> Do you have a suggestion for the name? (I'm sorry but cscs just 
>> doesn't work for me at all)
>
> Proj*.* just doesn't work for me. I am interested in more than a 
> projection library.
The reason that cscs doesn't work for me is because we need a name that 
has a little more marketability, i.e it needs to be catchier than that.  
Yes I agree that is a pretty shallow reason but it is important 
nonetheless if you want people to actually use the library and remember 
it when they hear about it.  The vast majority of people out there don't 
understand or care about the difference between a coordinate system and 
a projection (including me until it was explained to me) and in their 
minds they are simply dealing with projections, and so even if Proj* 
might not be rigorously accurate, that sort of things happens all the 
time for marketing purposes.

Mike




Richard Greenwood wrote:
> I am copying this to the mapbuilder-proj list. This is a reply to an
> off-list discussion between Mike Adair and myself. I'll use 'cscs'
> below when referring to the JavaScript.
>
> Following on one of my suggestions from September, I'd like the core
> of cscs to be a subset of cs2cs.c. The core would closely parallel
> cs2cs.c. I would like to go back and modify some of my work to move it
> closer to the C code.  e.g. the forward/inverse functions should
> return an XY or LP object rather than modifying the input values by
> reference. Returning XY or LP is consistent with cs2cs.c, modifying by
> reference is the gctpc convention. Keeping the core close to cs2cs.c
> makes maintenance easier, and it makes it easier for other people to
> help with porting.
>
> I'd like the core to be very lean, and have no dependencies on other
> JS libraries. I would like to leave out lookups. e.g. support
> from_greenwich but not pm, to_wgs84 but not datum, etc.
>
> A wrapper could provide a superset of functionality: dynamic loading,
> lookups, functionality required by specific implementations like
> OpenLayers, etc.
>
> I am in complete agreement on having a unique namespace, but I would
> like to see the core stay closer to cs2cs.c. The wrapper could be as
> object oriented as you like, because it is original work. There is a
> temptation when porting to 'improve' on the original. But those
> improvements should go into the original C code first.
>
> For each projection added to the project, I would like to see the
> following metadata in comments:
> 	who added it
> 	date added
> 	source (Proj.4, gctpc, other) and version of source
> 	tests (which forms were tested, which hemispheres, etc.)
>
> With regard to name, I am as opposed to a Proj*.* type name as I ever
> was. Naming a new project on a colloquialism is unprofessional, and it
> is a disservice to non-English speakers. I've never found GDAL or OGR
> especially catchy, but that doesn't appear to have hindered their
> adoption. 'CRS' and 'SRS' are commonly used abbreviations. Combined w/
> JS that would yield: CRS-JS, JS-CRS, SRS-JS, JS-SRS. I prefer to see a
> 'G' in there since we are working with specifically with geodetic
> coordinate systems.
>
> I am skiing into a yurt for the rest of the week and will not have
> email, but I think this is an important discussion.
>
> Rich
>
>
>