Hi Don,
Any help on the following?
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Adams Tan <nikida78_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Don, thanks for the prompt reply.
> So i can assume with a max cache size of X, at any one time, only X tiles
> are kept in mem (with the rest unloaded and waiting for GC)? In that case,
> is there a reason for the partial loading behavior?
>
> On the other hand, I was looking through the code and I noticed
> getBufferedImage was called twice (once when the small squares will loading
> up, once when i zoom in enough for the images to be displayed). Do you think
> this accounts for the initial delay. In that case, wouldn't all the images
> be already loaded in memory (thought not displayed) once I set the layer to
> be visible.
>
> Adams
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:49 PM, Don Dietrick <dietrick_at_bbn.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Adams,
>>
>> The intention of the code is that the images shouldn't be loaded in to
>> memory until they need to be viewed. As far as I can tell, the delay you
>> are seeing is the JAI code running through the file finding the geospatial
>> tags, trying to find out where the images go. I have some tiles (similar
>> sizes) that are handled really quickly, and others that are pretty slow. I
>> haven't been able to find out what the difference between the two files are,
>> or what JAI is doing differently for those slower files.
>>
>> I haven't noticed an issue with the scale settings, I'll take a look at
>> it, though.
>>
>> - Don
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 27, 2009, at 6:52 AM, Adams Tan wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I have been playing around with ImageTileLayer and I noticed once I set
>>> the layer to be visible, it will take quite a while (assuming I have a huge
>>> 30MB png sliced into 300 tiles, about 100KB per slice) where I will see
>>> small boxes appearing one by one. At this stage, does the images already get
>>> loaded into the memory heap? If not, why would this process take so long? I
>>> assume that the images are only loaded (on demand) when the current scale
>>> matches the cut-off scale specified, hence, this long delay seems
>>> unnecessary.
>>> cale goes lower than what I specified in the cut-off scale,
>>>
>>> Another issue that I noticed is the cut off scale does not seems to make
>>> much diff on when the image is actually displayed (pre-loaded or not, i'm
>>> not sure). A setting of 100,000 (default) and 1,000,000 does not seems to
>>> affect when each images are displayed. Often I see partial display of tiles
>>> even though i set the cache size to 50. Sometimes I count the number of
>>> squares and they are lower than the cache size that I set. Shouldn't all the
>>> tiles in the current map view be displayed as long as they are below my
>>> specified cache size?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Adams
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
[To unsubscribe to this list send an email to "majdart_at_bbn.com"
with the following text in the BODY of the message "unsubscribe openmap-users"]
Received on Mon Oct 05 2009 - 02:30:00 EDT