There you go: a ticket and an example http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1835 http://dev.openlayers.org/sandbox/igrcic/openlayers/examples/strategy-bbox.html
Cheers, Ivan On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:40 PM, Tim Schaub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey- > > Ivan Grcic wrote: >> Hi, ive tried Tims patch and i must say im pretty happy with it. Tnx Tim! >> >> I dont need to filter data depending on number of features >> (maxfeatures), but to show all the currently available data for area, >> then the cluster strategy jumps in and takes care that there are not >> too many features rendered. Perfect. >> >> Now the only problem is that one when upon activateing layer, it has >> to be nudged a bit for features to load (moveend effect) >> > > Ivan, can you open a ticket and post an example that reproduces this > specific problem? It would be great to have a record of it. Also, if > you write back here with the ticket number, it would be good to have as > part of this thread. > > Thanks, > Tim > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Eric Lemoine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Thanks for putting this patch together Tim. >>> >>> Initially Chris wanted that the bbox strategy behave aggressively on >>> zoom in, but, as an optimization, only if the number of features in >>> the layer is not lower than the maxfeatures value set in the protocol. >>> >>> The change you're proposing wouldn't allow this. The change I proposed >>> involved adding a new Integer option to the bbox strategy. If that >>> option is null the strategy behaves as currently. If it's non-null >>> then it behaves aggressively if the number of features in the layer is >>> not lower than the option value. >>> >>> Chris was concerned with configuration data duplication - maxfeatures >>> is kinda set in the protocol as well as in the strategy; which doesn't >>> bother me actually. >>> >>> You may concerned with the fact that my proposed option targets a >>> specific case (maxfeatures-parameterized requests) and doesn't address >>> other, maybe more common, cases. I actually don't see other cases when >>> a more aggressive mode makes sense, but that's probably just me. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> 2008/11/13, Tim Schaub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>> Hey- >>>> >>>> Christopher Schmidt wrote: >>>>> I'm still lost as to how to go about coding what I want :) I want to >>>>> have maxfeatures, and more aggressive invalidation because of it. Any >>>>> suggestinos as to how I might go about implementing that, or should I >>>>> just toss together something and people will look at afterwards? >>>>> >>>> If you haven't already tossed something together, see the patch for >>>> http://trac.openlayers.org/ticket/1830. >>>> >>>> Set resFactor to 1 if you want to request features with every change in >>>> resolution. >>>> >>>> Tim >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tim Schaub >>>> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org >>>> Expert service straight from the developers. >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Dev mailing list >>>> Dev@openlayers.org >>>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Dev mailing list >>> Dev@openlayers.org >>> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Tim Schaub > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > Expert service straight from the developers. > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > Dev@openlayers.org > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > -- Ivan Grcic _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list Dev@openlayers.org http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
