Andrew, <br><br>Unfortunately, in regards to Fusion / Mapserver and it's tiling capabilities this is not something that I am aware of. not to say that it doesn't exist but I have no experience with it. Perhaps someone on the list can weigh in here ;)<br>
<br>Again as far as the "performance" issue: <br><br>All three demos should have the same performance (openlayers / mapfish / fusion) because they are all openlayers. I think what we are seeing here is a perceived performance issue instead of an actual one:<br>
<br>I believe is the fact that when fusion is requesting an image it blanks to a white page as an image is requested this gives you a noticeable cue and or illusion of a performance issue were as with a tiled map window, you can see the tiles coming in so you think it's faster. <br>
<br>Playing around with the map file's size attributes have no effect as they are indeed being overridden by fusion. The map image being requested from the mapserv binary "CGI". <br><br>As far as contributions they are indeed welcome. However lets see if this functionality is not already scheduled to be accomplished already. Perhaps there is a milestone for this in fusion 2.0. <br>
<br>Anyone what to comment here?<br><br>Cheers<br><br>Paul D. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Andrew Parker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew@source3.com">andrew@source3.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Paul D:<br>
<br>
>From your post, it is my understanding that Fusion does not have the capability to use tiles. Is this true? If needed, I have a programmer that can dedicate his time to add tile functionality. <br>
I set the SingleTile tag to "true" then "false" in the MapSet (file ApplicationDefinition.xml) to see if there was any change on the way Fusion rendered the map. I did not notice any difference. I also played around with the map size in the *.map file from "800 640" to "200 100" to "2000 1000" to see if it made any difference (curiosity, what else can I say). I did not notice any difference with respect to speed; I am sure Fusion is overwriting this setting. I set the final size to "300 300" for no reason at all.<br>
<br>
At this time, I am most concerned with fast rendering of the USGS topo maps and the Geologic Map. Google is not that important. But, if need be, I can have the programmer start working on the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class; I will need a little help to point him in the right direction.<br>
<br>
~andrew<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul Deschamps wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">
Hi Andrew,<br>
<br>
hehe yes or no answer ;)<br>
<br>
What you are doing here is not a "true" comparison of the three different technologies.<br>
<br>
Your mapfish and your openlayers application are using tiles where your fusion app is not. You see in a tiled mapwindow tiles outside of the mapwindow can be cached so that they display when they are dragged into position. Another consideration about tiled mapviewers is the size of each tile.<br>
<br>
If the size of the tile requested from the server is requested at the same native size of the tile on the server then the server does not need to stitch tiles together.<br>
<br>
All three of these examples are using Openlayers. So from a strictly fetching of the map image and presenting it on the screen the performance would be identical as long as the requested image is the same size across all three.<br>
<br>
And lastly, Your Openlayers app is using Google's Server Farm directly for it's imagery where the mapfish and fusion are requesting it. so it's an extra step for every map draw.<br>
<br>
Fusion is a toolkit that provides common set of map "widgets" and UI controls that enable rapid application development (RAD) there's a buzz wo from the past. :)<br>
<br>
If you really want fusion to preform in the same fashion that your openlayers app is. You can:<br>
<br>
Add the OpenLayers.Layers.Google class to your openlayers.js and get fusion to work with it. ( may or may not be an easy task)<br>
Or wait for it to be added eventually ;)<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Paul D.<br>
<br></div><div class="Ih2E3d">
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Andrew Parker <<a href="mailto:andrew@source3.com" target="_blank">andrew@source3.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:andrew@source3.com" target="_blank">andrew@source3.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br>
I am not sure if there is a way to make Fusion render maps as fast<br>
as OpenLayers. At this time, I just need a yes or no answer.<br>
<br>
For example, it would be great if I could make my current Fusion<br>
application (<a href="http://216.93.173.156/testing/" target="_blank">http://216.93.173.156/testing/</a>) draw the map as fast<br>
as my current OpenLayers application (http//:<a href="http://webgis.source3.com" target="_blank">webgis.source3.com</a><br>
<<a href="http://webgis.source3.com" target="_blank">http://webgis.source3.com</a>>) and my MapFish test at<br>
(http://<a href="http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/" target="_blank">http://216.93.173.156/MFtest/</a>).<br>
<br>
What I am using for a comparison is the Topo Map Layer with the<br>
USGS wells (the data is limited to New Mexico, USA) at a scale of<br>
about 1:100,000. When I zoom and pan, I like how fast<br>
OpenLayers/MapFish redraws.<br>
I went ahead and turned on the two layers that I am using for a<br>
comparison in MapFish test and my Fusion test.<br>
<br>
The topo is from TerraServer. The USGS data is in PostGIS.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
<br>
~andrew<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
fusion-users mailing list<br></div>
<a href="mailto:fusion-users@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">fusion-users@lists.osgeo.org</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fusion-users@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">fusion-users@lists.osgeo.org</a>><div class="Ih2E3d">
<br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Paul Deschamps<br>
Applications Specialist<br>
DM Solutions Group Inc.<br>
<br>
Office: (613) 565-5056 x28<br></div>
<a href="mailto:pdeschamps@dmsolutions.ca" target="_blank">pdeschamps@dmsolutions.ca</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:pdeschamps@dmsolutions.ca" target="_blank">pdeschamps@dmsolutions.ca</a>><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
<a href="http://www.dmsolutions.ca" target="_blank">http://www.dmsolutions.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://research.dmsolutions.ca" target="_blank">http://research.dmsolutions.ca</a><br>
<br>
</div></blockquote><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">
_______________________________________________<br>
fusion-users mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:fusion-users@lists.osgeo.org" target="_blank">fusion-users@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users" target="_blank">http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fusion-users</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br> Paul Deschamps<br> Applications Specialist<br> DM Solutions Group Inc.<br><br> Office: (613) 565-5056 x28<br> <a href="mailto:pdeschamps@dmsolutions.ca">pdeschamps@dmsolutions.ca</a><br>
<a href="http://www.dmsolutions.ca">http://www.dmsolutions.ca</a><br> <a href="http://research.dmsolutions.ca">http://research.dmsolutions.ca</a><br> <br><br>