[mapguide-internals] RE: [mapguide-users] Problem with OS Geo FDOProviderfor Raster.

[Robert Bray]

Yes good idea. If anything we should be cross posting to fdo-internals.

It would be good to know definitively where the XML Config file approach 
breaks down. We have hacked up the ATIL based Raster Provider to store 
extent information in the XML docs and that works quite well with test 
data sets of 16,000 images. The fact that the server caches the config 
docs helps quite a bit. We also believe we can bring down the parse time 
even more.

That said I am a big fan of the file-based vector tile index approach.

Bob

Andy Morsell wrote:
> Sorry about starting the cross-posting.  The topic started in the users
> group and responses last night seemed more targeted towards internals, so I
> cc'ed that group.  Should we move the discussion to internal at this point? 
> 
> 
> Andy 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
> [mailto:mapguide-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Frank
> Warmerdam
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 9:28 AM
> To: MapGuide Internals Mail List
> Cc: MapGuide Users Mail List
> Subject: SPAM-LOW: Re: [mapguide-internals] RE: [mapguide-users] Problem
> with OS Geo FDOProviderfor Raster.
> 
> Jason Birch wrote:
>> Frank wrote:
>>
>>> However, I'm not completely certain that this will scale to 
>>> datasources with 50000 individual files.
>> So, you're thinking of referencing an external FDO vector feature and 
>> doing an envelope-intersects type operation?
> 
> Jason,
> 
> Well, I suppose this would be the right solution (as opposed to the
> expedient solution of my just using OGR for the tileindex).
> 
>>> More generally I would like to see MapGuide and FDO consider 
>>> participating in the OSGeo Project Sponsorship program:
>> I like this idea a lot in concept, but in practice it would be a lot 
>> harder for me to do this than it would to generate a PO for a given 
>> statement of work from a consultant.  Like a lot of open source stuff, 
>> it's a non-traditional system, and takes quite a bit of work to 
>> explain/justify to traditional purchasing departments.
> 
> My hope is that "earmarked sponsorship" can be handled as a purchase order
> for specific delivered functionality even if it goes through the foundation.
> I would agree that general sponsorship is a harder sell from a "purchasing"
> point of view.
> 
> PS. I hate these cross postings.
> 
> Best regards,