On 01/-10/-28163 08:59 PM, Marco Hugentobler wrote:
Thank you very much for the usefull WFS extensions! Your patch is
applied to master now (that was approach 2. I guess?).
Seems to me approach 2. is good in a zoom-in scenario whereas approach
3. is also good in a pan scenario (e.g. panning back to areas already
visited). So my favorite one is 3.
In longer term, it would be cool to have an intelligent caching
strategy considering the used amount of memory and the already visited
areas (and that could also be used as cache for other provider types,
e.g. postgres, shape, ...).
Marco,
You are correct, the last patch I attached to ticket 4604 was my
"medium" (approach 2) WFS patch. However, I have nearly finished a
complete replacement for that patch.
The new patch avoids the earlier disadvantage of my "maximum" (approach
3) patch: multiple HTTP GETs for incrementally adding features to a WFS
layer. It now does a single HTTP GET to retrieve all features for new
areas to be rendered around the perimeter of an extent previously
rendered (without re-fetching the previously-fetched areas). I want to
touch up some code and comments and test it a bit more. I hope to
attach this final patch to ticket 4604 by Wednesday evening, 29 Dec.
Once complete, this patch should completely resolve tickets 4604 and 4280.
When you have time, I'd like to know more about what you have in mind as
a generalized caching strategy. Perhaps I could do some of that work as
a follow-on to the WFS-specific development here.
Bill
_______________________________________________
Qgis-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer
