[OpenLayers-Dev] OpenLayers.Tile, abstract enough?

[Erik Uzureau]

Either way seems fine with me. I also can no longer remember the details
of that code. It does, howerver, sound relatively high-risk. proceed with
caution.

e



On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Paul Spencer <pspencer at dmsolutions.ca>wrote:

> I just took a quick look at this, I can't remember why Erik and I
> decided to put it in the Tile base class to begin with but t should be
> possible to move the back buffer code into the Tile.Image class.  I'll
> do this if everyone agrees.
>
> Paul
>
> On 30-Jul-08, at 1:27 AM, Eric Lemoine wrote:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > For the grid strategy I needed a specialized tile class. What
> > logically came to mind was create a child class of OpenLayers.Tile,
> > namely OpenLayers.Tile.Vector. Looking at OpenLayers.Tile I discovered
> > that OpenLayers.Tile includes back-buffer code that my class wouldn't
> > need. For that reason, I implemented my vector tile class without
> > inheriting from OpenLayers.Tile, which isn't good as my tile class
> > does respect the tile interface. Shouldn't OpenLayers.Tile be as
> > abstract as possible? Shoulnd't the backbuffer code be moved to some
> > other place? What do you think?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Eric
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dev mailing list
> > Dev at openlayers.org
> > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
>
> __________________________________________
>
>    Paul Spencer
>    Chief Technology Officer
>    DM Solutions Group Inc
>    http://www.dmsolutions.ca/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dev mailing list
> Dev at openlayers.org
> http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/openlayers-dev/attachments/20080730/00139d91/attachment.html