Hi Andreas, Thanks for your answer.
2011/11/14 Andreas Neumann <[email protected]> > > Many of the issues you raise here were also identified before or at the > recent developer meeting. See also http://www.qgis.org/wiki/** > QGISWebClientIdeas <http://www.qgis.org/wiki/QGISWebClientIdeas> > > I have read this page quite "live" during the hackfest (it was a rainy week-end down here in Montpellier). It has some very interesting things > The issue with the different scales are really annoying, so why dont we > make the 96 dpi the default? Do you really think it is much slower? Much slower, no, but I know for sure that decreasing tile sizes in one of the first optimisation you do when you deliver map on the web. But I am not sure decreasing DPI Tto 72 will make a big change though... > BTW - we already get 96dpi images, only OL seems to calculate the scale > with 72dpi. We even try to detect the dpi when loading the client. Not sure > if this works properly ... Thanks anyway for the hint. I will test it. > We spend half a day to understand why the layers did not have the correct behaviour regarding min and maxScale. After some deep thinking, it appeared it was relative to DPI . I can confirm for sure that using the OL option OpenLayers.DOTS_PER_INCH = 96 and asking tiles in 96 DPI works. No more problems (we tested it on a very complete and complex Qgis project) > > An improved GetLegendGraphics with user configurable sizes is already > requested and will be a paid development/improvement from Sourcepole. > Great news. > > GetCapabilities improvements: at the meeting we decided to use a web map > context (similar to GetCapabilities) but more configurable to transport > settings we want, e.g the initial layer visibility, etc. > I think it is a good idea :) Regards, Michael
_______________________________________________ Qgis-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
