ship only with minimal build for 2.12

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Bart van den Eijnden
As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of people are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to.

So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12?


Best regards,
Bart

-- 
Bart van den Eijnden
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.




_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Tom MacWright-3
Absolutely. If OpenLayers doesn't provide a jQuery-UI like build creator (something that I tried to do with OpenLayerer, but that build-tool refactoring was never accepted), then there should be a light build distributed by default. The expectations of the user to run the Python scripts are way too great for the use-case of just downloading and running the thing, even if they seems simple for developers. Like, some guy making an HTML website on a Windows machine would have to install Python from scratch: it isn't going to happen.

Tom

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bart van den Eijnden <[hidden email]> wrote:
As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of people are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to.

So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12?


Best regards,
Bart

-- 
Bart van den Eijnden
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.




_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev



_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Andreas Hocevar-2
The light build with the current lite configuration would be useless
for most users. As Tom says, many people won't be able to use the
python based build tool, and what then happens is much worse than
people using a full build: they'll be using the debug loader or the
hosted version from openlayers.org.

So I'm -1 on shipping a light build.

Andreas.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Absolutely. If OpenLayers doesn't provide a jQuery-UI like build creator
> (something that I tried to do with OpenLayerer, but that build-tool
> refactoring was never accepted), then there should be a light build
> distributed by default. The expectations of the user to run the Python
> scripts are way too great for the use-case of just downloading and running
> the thing, even if they seems simple for developers. Like, some guy making
> an HTML website on a Windows machine would have to install Python from
> scratch: it isn't going to happen.
>
> Tom
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bart van den Eijnden <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of people
>> are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to.
>>
>> So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12?
>>
>> https://twitter.com/#!/bartvdeijnden/status/172328188704333825
>> https://twitter.com/#!/brankgnol/status/172345191670358016
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>>
>> --
>> Bart van den Eijnden
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>



--
Andreas Hocevar
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Tom MacWright-3
There's no need for the current light build to be the one that ships: it'd be simple to expand and specialize it a bit more to align with what's needed by the Leaflet/Google Maps usecase.

Tom

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[hidden email]> wrote:
The light build with the current lite configuration would be useless
for most users. As Tom says, many people won't be able to use the
python based build tool, and what then happens is much worse than
people using a full build: they'll be using the debug loader or the
hosted version from openlayers.org.

So I'm -1 on shipping a light build.

Andreas.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Absolutely. If OpenLayers doesn't provide a jQuery-UI like build creator
> (something that I tried to do with OpenLayerer, but that build-tool
> refactoring was never accepted), then there should be a light build
> distributed by default. The expectations of the user to run the Python
> scripts are way too great for the use-case of just downloading and running
> the thing, even if they seems simple for developers. Like, some guy making
> an HTML website on a Windows machine would have to install Python from
> scratch: it isn't going to happen.
>
> Tom
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bart van den Eijnden <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of people
>> are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to.
>>
>> So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12?
>>
>> https://twitter.com/#!/bartvdeijnden/status/172328188704333825
>> https://twitter.com/#!/brankgnol/status/172345191670358016
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bart
>>
>> --
>> Bart van den Eijnden
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>



--
Andreas Hocevar
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.


_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Andreas Hocevar-2
I can already smell the questions on the mailing list and elsewhere
from people finding something not working when they go beyond the
"light" use case...

Still -1. What's so bad about a cacheable script of less than 1MB
gzipped, compared to a single non cacheable set of WMS tiles for a
fullscreen map with several MB?

Andreas.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There's no need for the current light build to be the one that ships: it'd
> be simple to expand and specialize it a bit more to align with what's needed
> by the Leaflet/Google Maps usecase.
>
> Tom
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> The light build with the current lite configuration would be useless
>> for most users. As Tom says, many people won't be able to use the
>> python based build tool, and what then happens is much worse than
>> people using a full build: they'll be using the debug loader or the
>> hosted version from openlayers.org.
>>
>> So I'm -1 on shipping a light build.
>>
>> Andreas.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Absolutely. If OpenLayers doesn't provide a jQuery-UI like build creator
>> > (something that I tried to do with OpenLayerer, but that build-tool
>> > refactoring was never accepted), then there should be a light build
>> > distributed by default. The expectations of the user to run the Python
>> > scripts are way too great for the use-case of just downloading and
>> > running
>> > the thing, even if they seems simple for developers. Like, some guy
>> > making
>> > an HTML website on a Windows machine would have to install Python from
>> > scratch: it isn't going to happen.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bart van den Eijnden
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of
>> >> people
>> >> are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to.
>> >>
>> >> So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12?
>> >>
>> >> https://twitter.com/#!/bartvdeijnden/status/172328188704333825
>> >> https://twitter.com/#!/brankgnol/status/172345191670358016
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Bart
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bart van den Eijnden
>> >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> >> Expert service straight from the developers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Dev mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Dev mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andreas Hocevar
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>
>



--
Andreas Hocevar
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Andreas Hocevar-2
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Still -1. What's so bad about a cacheable script of less than 1MB
> gzipped, compared to a single non cacheable set of WMS tiles for a
> fullscreen map with several MB?

177kB is the gzipped size of the current full build, to be precise.

Andreas.
--
Andreas Hocevar
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Tom MacWright-3
In reply to this post by Andreas Hocevar-2
(resending, forgot to reply all)

That's a larger problem: OpenLayers, the website, and the docs, doesn't talk about its modularity and what you do when when you don't have a component, or how you check to see if you have a component. That docs issue needs to be fixed, not avoided.

Enough with the filesize comparisons to WMS tiles or whatever; OpenLayers is a behemoth compared to other Javascript libraries - it's several times the size of jQuery, Backbone, Leaflet, and whatever else users have tried out, and for reasons that totally don't matter to 90% of users. OpenLayers is 177kb gzipped - that's 6x jQuery.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[hidden email]> wrote:
I can already smell the questions on the mailing list and elsewhere
from people finding something not working when they go beyond the
"light" use case...

Still -1. What's so bad about a cacheable script of less than 1MB
gzipped, compared to a single non cacheable set of WMS tiles for a
fullscreen map with several MB?

Andreas.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:
> There's no need for the current light build to be the one that ships: it'd
> be simple to expand and specialize it a bit more to align with what's needed
> by the Leaflet/Google Maps usecase.
>
> Tom
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> The light build with the current lite configuration would be useless
>> for most users. As Tom says, many people won't be able to use the
>> python based build tool, and what then happens is much worse than
>> people using a full build: they'll be using the debug loader or the
>> hosted version from openlayers.org.
>>
>> So I'm -1 on shipping a light build.
>>
>> Andreas.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Absolutely. If OpenLayers doesn't provide a jQuery-UI like build creator
>> > (something that I tried to do with OpenLayerer, but that build-tool
>> > refactoring was never accepted), then there should be a light build
>> > distributed by default. The expectations of the user to run the Python
>> > scripts are way too great for the use-case of just downloading and
>> > running
>> > the thing, even if they seems simple for developers. Like, some guy
>> > making
>> > an HTML website on a Windows machine would have to install Python from
>> > scratch: it isn't going to happen.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bart van den Eijnden
>> > <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of
>> >> people
>> >> are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to.
>> >>
>> >> So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12?
>> >>
>> >> https://twitter.com/#!/bartvdeijnden/status/172328188704333825
>> >> https://twitter.com/#!/brankgnol/status/172345191670358016
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >> Bart
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Bart van den Eijnden
>> >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> >> Expert service straight from the developers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Dev mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Dev mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andreas Hocevar
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>
>



--
Andreas Hocevar
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.


_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Andreas Hocevar-2
Hey Tom,

you're right, the documentation needs to be improved to explain the
modularity of the library better. What we really want in the end (you and I have
discussed this already) is make OpenLayers work better with common
dependency management tools that people work with.

After that, there will still be people that don't use dependency
management tools at all, and I think these people shouldn't be
bothered with missing components - especially if they come from GMaps
/ Leaflet *because* of functionality that's not available there.

Andreas.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:

> (resending, forgot to reply all)
>
> That's a larger problem: OpenLayers, the website, and the docs, doesn't talk
> about its modularity and what you do when when you don't have a component,
> or how you check to see if you have a component. That docs issue needs to be
> fixed, not avoided.
>
> Enough with the filesize comparisons to WMS tiles or whatever; OpenLayers is
> a behemoth compared to other Javascript libraries - it's several times the
> size of jQuery, Backbone, Leaflet, and whatever else users have tried out,
> and for reasons that totally don't matter to 90% of users. OpenLayers is
> 177kb gzipped - that's 6x jQuery.
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>>
>> I can already smell the questions on the mailing list and elsewhere
>> from people finding something not working when they go beyond the
>> "light" use case...
>>
>> Still -1. What's so bad about a cacheable script of less than 1MB
>> gzipped, compared to a single non cacheable set of WMS tiles for a
>> fullscreen map with several MB?
>>
>> Andreas.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > There's no need for the current light build to be the one that ships:
>> > it'd
>> > be simple to expand and specialize it a bit more to align with what's
>> > needed
>> > by the Leaflet/Google Maps usecase.
>> >
>> > Tom
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Andreas Hocevar <[hidden email]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The light build with the current lite configuration would be useless
>> >> for most users. As Tom says, many people won't be able to use the
>> >> python based build tool, and what then happens is much worse than
>> >> people using a full build: they'll be using the debug loader or the
>> >> hosted version from openlayers.org.
>> >>
>> >> So I'm -1 on shipping a light build.
>> >>
>> >> Andreas.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Absolutely. If OpenLayers doesn't provide a jQuery-UI like build
>> >> > creator
>> >> > (something that I tried to do with OpenLayerer, but that build-tool
>> >> > refactoring was never accepted), then there should be a light build
>> >> > distributed by default. The expectations of the user to run the
>> >> > Python
>> >> > scripts are way too great for the use-case of just downloading and
>> >> > running
>> >> > the thing, even if they seems simple for developers. Like, some guy
>> >> > making
>> >> > an HTML website on a Windows machine would have to install Python
>> >> > from
>> >> > scratch: it isn't going to happen.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tom
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Bart van den Eijnden
>> >> > <[hidden email]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As suggested by Antoine on Twitter, and I agree. Clearly a lot of
>> >> >> people
>> >> >> are still using a full build, even if we tell people not to.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So what about only shipping a minimal build for 2.12?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> https://twitter.com/#!/bartvdeijnden/status/172328188704333825
>> >> >> https://twitter.com/#!/brankgnol/status/172345191670358016
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Best regards,
>> >> >> Bart
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Bart van den Eijnden
>> >> >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> >> >> Expert service straight from the developers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Dev mailing list
>> >> >> [hidden email]
>> >> >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Dev mailing list
>> >> > [hidden email]
>> >> > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Andreas Hocevar
>> >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
>> >> Expert service straight from the developers.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andreas Hocevar
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>
>



--
Andreas Hocevar
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Peter Robins
In reply to this post by Bart van den Eijnden
what do you mean by 'shipping'? AFAICS, the example you quote may have just done
"wget http://openlayers.org/api/OpenLayers.js > mycopyofol.js"
or similar. I'd agree it's not a sensible thing to do - either  make
your own build, or use the hosted version which is cacheable across
many websites - but I don't see how you can stop people doing it.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Tom MacWright-3
So the problems are:

  1. Users want instant download gratification
  2. Downloading just OpenLayers.js makes all of the images break, and the documentation around fixing this is weak and hard to find
  3. We'd rather people use lightweight builds & local hosting
So
  1. Improve the OpenLayers.org website with a clear download link and a clear warning against using the 'hosted version'
  2. Make that download contain easy-to-read documentation that explains what's in OpenLayers.js and OpenLayers.light.js
  3. Document how to get controls working correctly on your site after downloading the library.
Other libraries don't have this problem, because people can clearly see how and why to download them: see jquery.org, backbonejs.org, etc: the download links are visible. Not on OpenLayers.org.

The only libraries that recommend CDN-based hosting are those with stable servers and a good reason to do that, like Google Maps. OpenLayers has neither - openlayers.org goes down often and there's no great reason why people should be using a CDN-hosted version - a cross-domain cache isn't a very strong reason.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Peter Robins <[hidden email]> wrote:
what do you mean by 'shipping'? AFAICS, the example you quote may have just done
"wget http://openlayers.org/api/OpenLayers.js > mycopyofol.js"
or similar. I'd agree it's not a sensible thing to do - either  make
your own build, or use the hosted version which is cacheable across
many websites - but I don't see how you can stop people doing it.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev


_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Phil Scadden
I'm a little concerned about the assumptions of what "90% of users
need". I thought about a custom build but I couldnt find much to remove
- some vector formats but if the application is open to using many
server layer types, then you need those.

Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential. If received in error please destroy and immediately notify us. Do not copy or disclose the contents.

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Tom MacWright-3
Okay, a preliminary sketch:
  • Layer types: XYZ, WMS, Google, Vector
  • Lang: en
  • Protocol: HTTP
  • Strategy: none
  • Format: GeoJSON, KML
  • Controls: All except SLD, WMS, whatever
Basically what needs to go from a minimal build is legacy stuff (KaMap, seriously?), Arc* stuff that nobody uses, and OGC stuff that nobody uses (GML?)

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Phil Scadden <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm a little concerned about the assumptions of what "90% of users
need". I thought about a custom build but I couldnt find much to remove
- some vector formats but if the application is open to using many
server layer types, then you need those.

Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential. If received in error please destroy and immediately notify us. Do not copy or disclose the contents.

_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev


_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Matt Priour
In reply to this post by Tom MacWright-3
I think Tom & Bart make good points about community support and making this library we all know and love easier for beginners and "basic" use cases to get started with.

I'd like to see a download link to a zip file including the library, generated api docs, "Getting Started" & "Building your own OpenLayers", and the following pre-built builds:
1. OpenLayers.js (full build - minified)
2. OpenLayers.mobile.js (current mobile build profile - minified)
3. OpenLayers.light.js (a reasonably simplified build for Vector, WMS, OSM, Bing, & Google map cases - minified)
4 - 6. The uncompressed 'debug' versions of the above files

Then in the class docs, clearly state if a class is included in the mobile or light build profile by default and if not, include a note or flag of some kind that this class is only available in the full build or your own custom build profile.

Second, I don't see why OpenGeo or some other organization that is heavily invested in OpenLayers could not foot (or find sponsorship to foot) the bill for placing the library on a CDN like Amazon Cloud Front. This would bring it to parity with a number of other well know, well regarded javascript libraries. I agree that the current openlayers.org server is not the right place for high volume hosting of the build library versions.

Matt Priour
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Peter Robins
In reply to this post by Tom MacWright-3
On 22 February 2012 19:01, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Downloading just OpenLayers.js makes all of the images break, and the

ah yes, that's true - the hidden dependencies

I've been gradually squeezing my own builds down, but if I want vector
support with all the classes like protocols and strategies that
simplify using them, I can't get the closure-compiled file down much
below 300kB (some 75kB gzipped). Plus I want a different build for
mobiles, extra classes for pages that edit vectors, etc, etc.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Andreas Hocevar-2
This starts to look like a plan. A lot of work ahead, so keep the pull
requests (to both docs and openlayers) coming.

When the release contains different profiles, it is also not a big
deal if something is missing in a stripped down build, because people
can always switch to the full build if something is missing.

Andreas.

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Peter Robins
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 22 February 2012 19:01, Tom MacWright <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Downloading just OpenLayers.js makes all of the images break, and the
>
> ah yes, that's true - the hidden dependencies
>
> I've been gradually squeezing my own builds down, but if I want vector
> support with all the classes like protocols and strategies that
> simplify using them, I can't get the closure-compiled file down much
> below 300kB (some 75kB gzipped). Plus I want a different build for
> mobiles, extra classes for pages that edit vectors, etc, etc.
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev



--
Andreas Hocevar
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
Expert service straight from the developers.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

erilem


On Thursday, February 23, 2012, Andreas Hocevar wrote:
This starts to look like a plan. A lot of work ahead, so keep the pull
requests (to both docs and openlayers) coming.

When the release contains different profiles, it is also not a big
deal if something is missing in a stripped down build, because people
can always switch to the full build if something is missing.

So is the plan to ship two builds in the release archive, a full build and a light build? That sounds good to me. I wonder if we should also provide a mobile-specific build. And yes, we'll need to provide some text file in the release archive to describe what these builds are and provide, and how to create custom builds.

Also, do we continue to provide online versions on openlayers.org? And do we also have online versions with both full and light builds?

Thanks,


--
Eric Lemoine

Camptocamp France SAS
Savoie Technolac, BP 352
73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex

Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96
Mail : [hidden email]
http://www.camptocamp.com


_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Schuyler Erle

On Feb 28, 2012, at 12:38 PM, Eric Lemoine wrote:

> So is the plan to ship two builds in the release archive, a full build and a light build? That sounds good to me. I wonder if we should also provide a mobile-specific build. And yes, we'll need to provide some text file in the release archive to describe what these builds are and provide, and how to create custom builds.

I think those are all fantastic ideas!

> Also, do we continue to provide online versions on openlayers.org? And do we also have online versions with both full and light builds?

Yes, and yes, although the comment that we should be serving them through a CDN should be considered... anybody have good ideas on how to accomplish this?

SDE_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Peter Robins
In reply to this post by erilem
On 28 February 2012 07:08, Eric Lemoine <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So is the plan to ship two builds in the release archive, a full build and a
> light build? That sounds good to me. I wonder if we should also provide a
> mobile-specific build. And yes, we'll need to provide some text file in the
> release archive to describe what these builds are and provide, and how to
> create custom builds.

the last is already in
http://docs.openlayers.org/library/deploying.html (and would be better
if rebuilt to include my recent changes). Do we need to duplicate this
in a release archive? At the moment, documentation, much of it
out-of-date, is all over the place: api docs, examples,
docs.openlayers.org, trak wiki, doc/ and notes/, github readme, and
probably a few more I'm not aware of. Wouldn't it be better to have
one central online place for _all_ documentation?

Ideally, if you're going to have separate builds, the release should
also document which examples apply to which builds. This all sounds
like quite a lot of work to me.
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

erilem
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Peter Robins
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 28 February 2012 07:08, Eric Lemoine <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> So is the plan to ship two builds in the release archive, a full build and a
>> light build? That sounds good to me. I wonder if we should also provide a
>> mobile-specific build. And yes, we'll need to provide some text file in the
>> release archive to describe what these builds are and provide, and how to
>> create custom builds.
>
> the last is already in
> http://docs.openlayers.org/library/deploying.html (and would be better
> if rebuilt to include my recent changes). Do we need to duplicate this
> in a release archive? At the moment, documentation, much of it
> out-of-date, is all over the place: api docs, examples,
> docs.openlayers.org, trak wiki, doc/ and notes/, github readme, and
> probably a few more I'm not aware of. Wouldn't it be better to have
> one central online place for _all_ documentation?

Yes... Yet a few notes in a README file of the release archive would
make sense to me.


>
> Ideally, if you're going to have separate builds, the release should
> also document which examples apply to which builds. This all sounds
> like quite a lot of work to me.

The examples in the release could work with the debug OpenLayers.js script.



--
Eric Lemoine

Camptocamp France SAS
Savoie Technolac, BP 352
73377 Le Bourget du Lac, Cedex

Tel : 00 33 4 79 44 44 96
Mail : [hidden email]
http://www.camptocamp.com
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ship only with minimal build for 2.12

Matt Priour
In reply to this post by Schuyler Erle
I'll volunteer to host the builds (along with associated css, images, etc) on my Amazon CloudFront account backed by S3 storage at least initially.
I'll start with the 2.11 released version
12