[Users] GeoExt 1.0?

[Chris Holmes]

Awesome, thanks for the great discussion.  In retrospect I realize that 
I shouldn't have put my 'list' at all, since I'm actually much more 
interested in getting to 1.0 sooner with a small core than getting all 
those features in.  I had just thought others were maybe waiting for 
features since no one had mentioned 1.0.

So perhaps we should make a plan for a 1.0 release?  Unfortunately 
resources are pretty tight here at the moment, but it sounds like we're 
pretty close?  Could we establish what exactly the roadmap is?  Like 
every detail we need to have for a 1.0?  Do we need more examples?  Are 
there APIs to be discussed?  Does svn need reorganization?  Does the 
website need more?  What announcements do we need?  Or do we really just 
need ExtJS 3.x fully working?

At OpenGeo our paid client work has to go to the improvements they are 
funded, but I'd prefer any community time we find to go towards getting 
to 1.0.  We can establish the details, but not put a time frame on it, 
and when every one is done we can release 1.0.  And save everything else 
for 1.1.

C

Matt Priour wrote:
> +1 on calling 1.0 when ExtJS 3.x if fully supported
> Matt Priour
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Tim Schaub" <tschaub at opengeo.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 5:02 PM
> To: "GeoExt Users" <users at geoext.org>
> Subject: Re: [Users] GeoExt 1.0?
> 
>> Chris Holmes wrote:
>>> What's on people's minds for the minimum component list that we need
>>> before we call things '1.0'?
>>>
>>> The list in my mind (past what's already in core, which I think gets us
>>> much of the way there) is something like:
>>>
>>> * Styling
>>> * Editing tools (with WFS-T and backed to other persistence formats)
>>> * Google Earth plugin
>>> * 'Search' - generic components, plus specific things for geocoding,
>>> geonames, etc.
>>> * Printing
>>> * As easy to add google maps or bing through the UI as it is to add WMS
>>> layers (or close to as easy, may have to include a key)
>>>
>> I'm a bit late coming into this thread, but here's my opinion.  I'd be
>> happy calling it 1.0 once we have solid Ext 3.x support.  I'd also like
>> to do a review of the API and make sure we're happy with the names &
>> patterns.
>>
>> I think all ux (and stuff listed above) can come after.  1.0 doesn't
>> mean "done" or in any way "complete" to me.  It just means "solid."
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>> I'm psyched on the other UX components, but I don't personally see them
>>> as essential.  What is on other people's lists?  What makes GeoExt a
>>> compelling mapping toolkit?
>>>
>>> I think there will be a whole lot of interest once GeoExt gets past 1.0,
>>> and it could be nice to define a roadmap / have an idea of what we're
>>> shooting for.  Then once that core is reached effort should be shifted
>>> from developing new components to getting what exists in to solid 1.0
>>> state, with docs, examples etc.
>>>
>>> C
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Tim Schaub
>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
>> Expert service straight from the developers.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at geoext.org
>> http://www.geoext.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at geoext.org
> http://www.geoext.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

-- 
Chris Holmes
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.