Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add browser support to PBF parser? #3

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

nrenner
Copy link
Collaborator

@nrenner nrenner commented Jan 30, 2014

Note: this is not an actual request to merge, just as a reference

I did a quick and dirty test for using pbfParser in the browser (not caring about Node.js).
Example: http://nrenner.github.io/osm-read/

I'm thinking about discontinuing osm-pbf.js and switching to osm-read because it's based on ProtoBuf.js and already supports reading some metadata, but:

  1. While my test is using shims and replacements for the node-specific parts, I would rather factor these out and have a neutral core. Browser support could then be added here or as a separate project. What do you think?
  2. Do you care about the GPL license and it's strong copyleft? I would prefer a permissive license like MIT, 2-clause BSD or Apache License (used by ProtoBuf.js) that doesn't require other projects using the library to also use GPL.

@marook
Copy link
Owner

marook commented Jan 31, 2014

Wow... it looks like you put a lot of effort into adapting osm-read :)

regarding 1.: I've written osm-read with a node.js environment in mind. But I think browser support would be a valuable extension for the current implementation. I'm totally with you that the strong reliance on node.js APIs should be refactored into a defined abstraction layer. To make things easier to understand I would recommend doing this step by step. I will accept pull requests for such refactorings even if they are just a part of the final solution. The code must only pass it's tests at any time.

regarding 2.: I don't have much experience with licensing. I know that the GPL license is very restricting for reuse in non open source environments. I could agree to change the license to LGPL. What do you think?

@nrenner
Copy link
Collaborator Author

nrenner commented Jan 31, 2014

I'm not a licensing expert either and I don't know which philosophy is better and don't want to convince anyone. I just decided to go for a permissive license and want to license my project under MIT, but that means I can't use any GPL libraries.

I guess LGPL would be fine though, so if you don't mind, changing the license to LGPL would be great. Otherwise I still can continue with osm-pbf.js, so it's not such a big deal.

@marook
Copy link
Owner

marook commented Jan 31, 2014

I changed the licensing to LGPL with version 0.3.2.

@nrenner
Copy link
Collaborator Author

nrenner commented Feb 1, 2014

Thanks a lot!

Closing, proper implementation will follow in step by step PRs.

@nrenner nrenner closed this Feb 1, 2014
@nrenner nrenner mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2014
5 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants