[mapguide-internals] RFC 90 Meta Tiling Support

[Zac Spitzer]

Sorry everyone, we should of posted to internals first.

that said there's a hell of lot of stuff done by AutoDesk Developers which
doesn't really follow this pattern at all either... just saying :) but
regardless
that's no excuse, we should of posted to the list first.

sandboxes are play grounds and the meta tiling work Uv is doing is very
much a work in progress at the moment. Once he has nutted out the
details he will post more info to internals

so, lets leave that behind and rewind the clock....

-----------------------------------------------------

I have posted a Draft of RFC 90 on trac

http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc90

This is a proposal to add meta tiling support to the mapguide engine.

The current approach is define a meta tile size factor in the serverconfig.ini
which then works in the back ground, rendering a large tile and then
slicing it into the normal tile sizes.

Given the static nature and global nature of anything done via serverconfig.ini,
this is all or nothing. I think we have resource headers which could be
used a lot more than we do currently, that way we can make map specific
configuration overrides.

For example, image format, selection color and meta tile factor would
all be good candidates for setting via resource headers. That would
avoid having to rev the xml def's to add such functionality.

Being able to tune maps configurationwithout changing a global setting
and restarting the server would be a good thing... RFC worthy?

Back to meta tiling...

Another approach would be to add support for a RENDERMETATILE mapagent,
which would avoid the locking and polling in the current model.

Uv's work so far at the base implementation is the rfc90 sandbox

Regards

Zac






On 27 March 2010 06:34, Jason Birch <jason at jasonbirch.com> wrote:
> The sandbox doesn't necessarily need to be tied to an RFC.
>
> Although the proper procedure should be followed in the future, I'm happy to
> retroactively approve the creation of the sandbox once the description email
> is sent.  Our SVN churns enough without having to delete / recreate that
> branch :)
>
> It would be good to get the RFC into discussion/approval before too much
> work is done so we can ensure that the approach is acceptable.  Wouldn't
> want to have to re-do substantial parts or (as a project) to lose this
> contribution.
>
> Jason
>
>
> On 26 March 2010 09:27, Trevor Wekel  wrote:
>
>> Hello UV,
>>
>> I have been having offline discussions with Zac regarding Meta Tiling
>> Support.  I do implicitly support this RFC because of the potential
>> performance improvements.
>>
>> Did I miss something?  I see that a draft RFC has been posted and a new
>> RFC90 sandbox has been created.  I do not recall see a posting to
>> mapguide-internals stating that you are
>> a) Working on meta tiling support
>> b) Going to create an RFC
>> c) Requesting a Sandbox
>>
>> The Sandbox rules are clearly posted on
>> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/Sandboxes.  Sandboxes must be
>> requested.
>>
>> It is great that you are contributing to the MapGuide project.  We
>> definitely need more developers in the community.  Please keep in mind that
>> all developers have to play by the rules.
>>
>> If a sandbox for RFC 90 was officially requested on mapguide-internals,
>> please disregard this email.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Trevor
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mapguide-internals mailing list
>> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-internals mailing list
> mapguide-internals at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-internals
>



-- 
Zac Spitzer
Solution Architect / Director
Ennoble Consultancy Australia
http://www.ennoble.com.au
http://zacster.blogspot.com
+61 405 847 168