There are probably other options as well. You could overlay the list with a single image and have the server concatenate the images into a single long image and send that up. Then under the covers, you bring the individual images into the cache and display them in item renderers. It is more work, but "magic" uses illusions like that.
I'm not sure why some intermediate numbers of renderers would work better than the two choices "virtual = as many as are visible" or "non-virtual = as many as are in the data provider". I don't recall any particular code that would let you control that, but I didn't go look either. I keep urging you to get good data when dealing with asynchronous data problems instead of guessing because if you guess wrong and it starts to work on one computer it might not work on some other computer. HTH, -Alex On 10/11/17, 6:54 PM, "bilbosax" <waspenc...@comcast.net> wrote: >Thanks for the replies Erik and Alex. When I get back to my computer >tomorrow, I will give your suggestions a try and see how it works out. >This >is a realestate app where property images are displayed when a property is >clicked on, so caching beforehand really isn't an option. But I am >interested in trying the datagroup. What about my second second question, >do >you know if it is possible to force a certain number of itemrenderers. >Right >now, it looks like it is using 3 itemrenderers, but I feel like 6 or 7 >would >be a happy medium for my situation, but I don't know if this is possible >either? > >Looking forward to trying datagroup. > > > >-- >Sent from: >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-fle >x-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C611d2f3321d64995e0be08d >51114310c%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636433700791157091& >sdata=bPjPls6Hn9GV1GQJEvbnGUj5dOyaxe4%2FVGF9WMIKo%2BA%3D&reserved=0
