Dear Antonio, I thank you for your comments. It is always good to know your (positive) perspective on such a colaboration.
stefan listas schrieb: > Hi all. > > First time, many thanks to Peppe, not only for your nice collaboration > with Kosmo, but for your interest in find "a common area for the > development of both brother" (I really like that definition). > > I would like to share some ideas/feeling about your comments. > > As you said, Kosmo is developed by project needs, but maybe it is better > to explain a little more the meaningful (our meaningful) of "project > needs and project driven development": > > Our main objective is not to develop Kosmo itself. Our main objetives > are the "client driven projects". To be able of realize correctly those > projects, we need continuously build and improve Kosmo. So, about a > "strict schedule" (a good subject to analyze), this exist, but mainly > for those projects. So, strict schedule for Kosmo exist only for what > is neccesary to carry out our commitment with clients. Without clients > we could not maintain Kosmo project. We are just a small company who > think we are able to work and live in a free software model, and return > to community all we can. > > About community, Kosmo is not only focused on a spanish user community. > In fact, in the last 1.2 versión it has been translated into italian > (thanks to Peppe), russian (thanks to Sergey Smirnov), german (thanks to > Johannes Sommer), brasilian portuguese (thanks to Territoriolivre.net > people), baske (thanks to baske administration people). Some other new > languajes are coming soon (czech, slovak...).. We directly maintain > both, english and spanish version. > > As you said, we have an important developmet team, because we have > client driven projects that let us to maintain it. We think other way > it is not possible for us to improve and to let Kosmo growing. > > We have translated/included a lot of code/tools from > OpenJUMP/Jump/DeeJump/Pirol/Sigle projects (and other no Jump family > utilities). > > Like some of you we would have liked a better cooperation. We still > would like it. > > -Maybe all we (you and us) have been, and will continue very busy to do > enough work in draw a common way to work together. > -Maybe it is not very easy. > -Maybe we too could do an additional effort and collaborate in help > translate and merge OpenJUMP into Kosmo. > -Maybe would be neccesary strict schedule only for those who need to > attend different/external Kosmo project commitment (private commitment), > and absolutely free to dedicate the time they want, when they want for > people developing Kosmo itself. In other words, none strict schedule > for Kosmo itself. > > About Intevation/LatLon and SkyJUMP team, we think it would be a very > good opportunity to get a positive synergy between us. > > We are not sure how easy/difficult arrive to this objective could be. > If we are able to arrive, there will be a new star in the GIS world. We > are sure walking the road in this way could be very exciting. > > Best regards > Antonio Muñoz > > > Sunburned Surveyor escribió: >> I must agree with many of the points made by Stefan and Michael. I >> know the language would be a barrier for me. :] >> >> I think someone (I can't remember who) looked at this issue rather >> closely and decided that it would be a huge amount of work to >> integrate the Kosmo changes into OpenJUMP. >> >> Having said that, I'm always looking for opportunities to share code >> with GeoTools, Deegree, Kosmo and others. Paul's work on the >> DataObjects framework should help with that, as it will allow us to >> overcome some of the challenges presented by the different feature >> models. >> >> I don't know that we need to "merge" Kosmo and OpenJUMP. What would >> really benefit everyone is if Kosmo and OpenJUMP programmers could >> develop libraries that could be shared between programs. We can do >> this by splitting out the lower level compontents that could then be >> used by different programs. Take, as an example, Java code that would >> work with TINs. You could separate the code for TIN model I/O and >> manipulation into a separate API that could be used by different >> programs, and then build a separate program-specific plug-in/user >> interface for Kosmo, UDig, and OpenJUMP. >> >> I think the only obstacle to this type of thing is better >> communications between projects. I'd love to hear suggestions on how >> that can be improved. I'm already subscribed to the UDig, Deegree, and >> GeoTools mailing lists. >> >> Maybe each project could appoint a volunteer to coordinate new >> functionality being incorporated into each project. Or maybe we try >> and host a quarterly online meeting to discuss opportunities for >> collaboration? >> >> I think we could accomplish a lot by changing our library design to >> share low-level components. >> >> The Sunburned Surveyor >> >> On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Michaël Michaud >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Kosmo benefits an important developper team, and I would have liked a >>> better cooperation between OpenJUMP and Kosmo. >>> I think the main problem is that kosmo started its development from an >>> old version of Jump, and when the first opensource version of kosmo was >>> published, jump and openjump had already made good progresses. >>> Now, it would be a lot of work to merge all openJUMP improvments into >>> kosmo (or the opposite). >>> I think OpenJUMP lacks development power to proceed to a big change like >>> integrating all kosmo's improvements or merging openjump goodies into >>> kosmo's core. >>> The way kosmo is driven maybe another difficulty (highlighted by >>> Stefan), and language and code comments may be another difficulty (I did >>> not check how kosmo code is documented). >>> Other comments from OJ's active developpers ? >>> >>> my 2 cents >>> >>> Michaël >>> >>> Stefan Steiniger a écrit : >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hei Peppe, >>>> >>>> the problem is simply that KOSMOs development is driven by project needs >>>> and that they focus on a spannish user community. >>>> >>>> On the one hand, there is the advantage if massive improvements and man >>>> power by Kosmo. On the other I am not sure if this would be a good idea >>>> if we allow a project driven development. Further we work on OJ if we >>>> find time. So it would be hard for us if a development schedule is >>>> introduced. >>>> >>>> so, more or less we can not really work together because we have >>>> different interests in the development - only exchanging sources and >>>> functionality would be possible. Or where would one see how we could do >>>> that? This topic would also need comments by Intevation/LatLon and >>>> SkyJUMP... but only if other volunteers aggree in a common project. >>>> >>>> my 2 cents. >>>> Stefan >>>> >>>> Giuseppe Aruta schrieb: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi all >>>>> I recently started to collaborate with the Kosmo SAIG project, >>>>> translating the software in Italian. >>>>> I use both software with my geological project.I belive that the 2 >>>>> software together have a strong potentiality. I would like to find a >>>>> common area for the development of both "brothers", starting a common >>>>> project. I read from SS blog that there was an idea about it some times >>>>> ago. >>>>> What is your opinion?Do (did) you have any idea about it? >>>>> Thanks for your attention >>>>> >>>>> Peppe >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Jump-pilot-devel mailing list Jump-pilot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jump-pilot-devel
