[OSM-talk] Serious consideration of "Newbie Editor"

Randy rwtnospam-newsgp at yahoo.com
Sun Feb 28 17:56:58 GMT 2010

Dave Stubbs wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:29 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> 
>>On 26 February 2010 19:44, Dave Stubbs <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk> wrote:
>>>There are two big advantages of a simple mode to an existing full editor:
>>> - you don't have to write the OSM handling parts again, even a simple
>>>editor needs to cope with some quite complex things
>>> - you provide an easy choice for the user who wishes to progress onto
>>>something less basic
>>There are some downsides, bloated code base, which in turns makes
>>things harder for new coders to edit or fix small issues, and higher
>>memory and other resource usage, although javascript may be higher
>>still, but I haven't needed to compare flash to javscript before.
>Bigger code base sure -- and lots of code that might not get used for
>some config -- if the code is written nicely that's largely to one
>side and people don't notice it. It's mostly UI stuff anyway -- as I
>said you actually end up needing most of the same back end processing
>if you're doing anything that involves not just POIs (and for various
>OSM reasons that's increasingly not so useful). This is more about
>good design than an inherent property.
>Higher memory and resource usage is about how you program it, and how
>the simple mode switch works, and isn't necessarily true at all.
>Flash vs Javascript is not really relevant to the points made, unless
>you mean that there isn't currently a javascript editor to cut down,
>which is of course true.
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org


Do you have any way to estimate the resource requirements for Potlatch 2, 
and what they would be if a "simple" switch were added. It would be much 
better to have something to go on, rather than assumptions, which often 
lead to flame wars.


More information about the talk mailing list