Guilhem Bonnefille <guilhem.bonnefi...@gmail.com> writes: > It's an interesting point of vue. Currently, the map cache is > associated to the *instance* of a map layer, not the map layer itself > (as far as i know). For example, you can embed two Mapnik layers with > different caches. > > As you spotted it, I think this is probably unecessary. A single cache > per map type or a global path for map cache would be certainly enough. > Other opinions?
I know you said "other" opinions, but here's a perhaps provocative statement: the only reason we have tile caching in viking is to speed up performance with slow servers, to handle some degree of offline use, and to be polite to upsteram tile servers. if we had a tilecache instance between viking and the web, then we could just let it work, and cache tiles according to normal rules, and not have to have any caching in viking. so really all the cache behavior in viking is doing is being a poor man's substitute for a caching web/tile proxy
pgp4q2iVYi0w3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb
_______________________________________________ Viking-devel mailing list Viking-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/viking-devel Viking home page: http://viking.sf.net/
