Proposal to fund development work on QGIS Server v3
Tim Sutton
Public
Seen by 482
During the work of QGIS 3.0, not only the Desktop and core code base received a lot of refactoring and API improvements, but also the server part. QGIS server is quite popular among users, due to the ease of use regarding configuration of symbology, feature information and print layouts. Users also like the fact that the rendering between QGIS Desktop and QGIS server is identical.
From version to version it has grown more powerful and extensible, due to Python plugin extensions. However, the code base also grew more and more complex, partially due to technical restrictions in the 2.x API when the majority of the QGIS server code base was written. However, while a lot of work already went into refactoring of the QGIS server code base, implemented by french and swiss companies 3Liz, Oslandia and Camptocamp, the work is not close to being finished. Financial support from QGIS.ORG would help developers to dedicate more time and help finish the refactoring and de-coupling between core and GUI, and rewriting essential parts of QGIS Server. In addition, effort would go into making sure that QGIS server is OGC compliant.
Fortunately, the financial situation of QGIS.ORG allows us to support the QGIS server development in addition to our commitments in the QGIS grants program and the bug fixing effort - we would just like your approval to do so!
QGIS voting members are kindly asked to approve dedicating 13 k € towards the improvement of the QGIS server code base. 3k € would be dedicated to 3Liz and the rewriting of the QGSWxS project file parser. The other 10k € would be distributed between the companies 3Liz, Oslandia and Camptocamp, according to availability and expertise of their developers. The three companies should use the available funds to ensure the best possible outcome for the QGIS server community. Upcoming work includes:
- Finishing refactoring of GetPrint command
- Finishing refactoring of GetLegendGraphics command
- Refactoring of GetFeatureInfo
- Refactoring of DXF output in the GetMap command
- Ensure and Increase OGC compliance and performance
Poll Created Tue 27 Jun 2017 8:19PM
I approve the allocation of 13 000 Euros for the work on QGIS Server Closed Tue 4 Jul 2017 8:01PM
Please indicate yes if you agree to this motion or no if you do not approve. Please use the discussion area if you need any clarifications.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Agree | 95.0% | 19 |
|
| Abstain | 5.0% | 1 |
|
|
| Disagree | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Block | 0.0% | 0 | ||
| Undecided | 0% | 11 |
|
20 of 31 people have participated (64%)
Werner Macho
Wed 28 Jun 2017 5:57AM
People like QGIS also for the easy combination of Desktop and Server. It's a great union in serving GIS projects. If the server is behind the desktop development some efforts should be put into it to keep the pace of desktop.
Vincent Picavet
Wed 28 Jun 2017 7:18AM
I am in favor but abstain, working at Oslandia
Ross McDonald
Thu 29 Jun 2017 10:50PM
The fact that both projects are so well integrated is a huge strength and server should be able to make the most of all the development going into desktop.
Matthias Kuhn
Fri 30 Jun 2017 7:04AM
An investment into a bright future of QGIS server which is an important part of the ecosystem. So worth it!
Tim Sutton Tue 21 Nov 2017 10:12PM
Hi Brent. Sorry I missed your original message here. Just a note to say that all the finances are public - just ask Andreas Neumann for the link. Next time I will try to remember to provide the link with the proposal too.
Regards
Tim
Matteo Ghetta Fri 30 Jun 2017 7:01AM
+1
Brent Wood · Thu 29 Jun 2017 10:40PM
How much of the financial reserves of QGIS,ORG does this leave? (Enough, plenty, not much?) I support the proposal in principle, but I don't know the impact on the overall financial situation, and am reluctant to vote on this without a better understanding of this aspect. I know Tim says we can afford this without compromising the other areas we provide funding, so a vote for is essentially based on ignorance & trust in Tim, rather than an informed decision. That said, I do trust Tim :smiley: