[mapguide-users] POOL:DWF or AJAX

[Ivan Miličević]

I figured out that ODBC connection drasticly slow performance. In dwf that
difference is not so big.  I've tested on 50 points. Measured by feeling ;-)


I've restart OS every time after test so "feeling" is relevant.

-----Original Message-----
From: Traian Stanev [mailto:traian.stanev at autodesk.com] 
Sent: 14. rujan 2006 14:46
To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org
Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] POOL:DWF or AJAX


As far as the "everything is selectable" argument, you need to take into
account the fact that if everything is selectable, it means ALL properties
for all features need to be included with the DWF that gets sent to the
client. They are all saved out in an XML file that is attached inside the
DWF package. So depending on how many features you have and the ratio of
viewing operations to selection operations the client is performing, the
bandwidth wasted by that DWF could be larger than sending over a simple PNG
and then processing a few mouse clicks on the server. So it's a double-edged
sword.

Traian
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Carranza [mailto:jec at gatekeeper.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 1:05 AM
To: users at mapguide.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [mapguide-users] POOL:DWF or AJAX


AJAX viewer "bugless" ? That is a pretty bold claim :)

While the "thinness" of the AJAX viewer certainly is appealing, I still get
a little uncomfortable everytime I think about the additional burden it puts
on the server in order to support selection and tooltips. We currently
author maps where almost everything is selectable, almost every feature has
a lengthy tooltip. In such an environment where users are doing alot of
object selection and tooltips, I just don't think the AJAX viewer will be
performant enough to satisfy our users moving from 6.5. I suspect alot of
people don't have this problem, but i'm just throwing my 2 cents in. 

I'm a big fan of vector output, for a couple reasons:
a) potentially more compact in terms of map request download
b) ideal for "disconnected" applications (where network connectivity is not
always available)
c) absolutely necessary for printing
d) easier to port existing MapGuide 6.5 applications

I would love to see vector output in a different format. The DWF viewer is a
major improvement over the MapGuide 6.5 viewer from our perspective because
its so much easier for us to customize for our own purposes. However,
deploying an ActiveX control is a big problem for alot of people. A java
viewer leveraging an open vector format would be way cool. I don't see any
reason why vector output should look worse than the raster output, although
I agree it does. (Why doesn't the DWF viewer do anti-aliasing?)

Something else that would be way cool that neither viewer has: Selected
objects being drawn in something other than solid blue....

Joel Carranza
Gatekeeper Systems


Ivan Miličević wrote:
> 
> Wich one you prefer?
> 
>  
> 
> For me, AJAX is better one.
> 
>  
> 
> Ajax:
> 
> -not needed plugin
> 
> -working with lot's of browsers
> 
> -visually looks better
> 
> -buugless
> 
> -more stable
> 
>  
> 
> DWF:
> 
> -faster
> 
> -better zooming, paning
> 
>  
> 
> Let's exchange expirience :-)
> 
> --------------------
> Ivan Miličević, voditelj razvoja
> iNEO d.o.o. 
> 091 502 9672
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/POOL%3ADWF-or-AJAX-tf2268101.html#a6299527
Sent from the OSGeo MapGuide forum at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at mapguide.osgeo.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at mapguide.osgeo.org




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe at mapguide.osgeo.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help at mapguide.osgeo.org