|
|
| GeoCommunity Mailing List |
| |
| Mailing List Archives |
| Subject: | RE: [gislist] GML too Bulky? (was google maps and OGC Testing) |
| Date: |
02/23/2005 08:40:01 AM |
| From: |
Sonny Parafina |
|
|
Bill,
Binary is always faster, especially when moving large amounts of data. GML
is governed by the same laws of physics as any verbose data type, more
packets, more electrons, more time. Small packages of GML can be quite
fast, similar to processing RSS feeds and it can be useful in certain
situations where client needs frequent data updates. However, attempting to
use GML as a vector data store in client/server or web configuration will
only lead to frustration.
The goal of GML is interoperability between loosely coupled systems. Since
GML is self-describing, a client can bind to different servers and use the
data as-is without the hassle of translation. The downside is, as you have
correctly pointed out, verbosity has a time and processing cost.
Operationally, you would use a WMS for the majority of mapping cases since
eveything is pre-rendered at the server. You would use GML (WFS) when you
have a feature type that you may want add/edit/delete, send a message, or
retrieve data from an external service.
sonny
-----Original Message-----
From: gislist-bounces@lists.thinkburst.com
[mailto:gislist-bounces@lists.thinkburst.com]On Behalf Of Bill Thoen
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 8:29 AM
To: gislist@lists.thinkburst.com
Subject: [gislist] GML too Bulky? (was google maps and OGC Testing)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Jeff Harrison wrote:
> Interoperability Testing has demonstrated the network performance of the
> specifications, so let's get beyond that. Oh, somebody will probably say
> that WFS doesn't work and that GML is too "bulky" to "perform" well--
> Sorry, that's not true either, it's works just fine for me, and it's
> getting even better with compression, etc.
I'm very curious about this. How can geometries stored as plain text
strings possibly be faster than the same objects stored as binary data?
Even with compression, you have the cost of decompressing on top of string
parsing. Or is the point more that GML is "plenty fast enough" and the
simplicity and interoperability of plain text is well worth the small
performance hit?
- Bill Thoen
_______________________________________________
gislist mailing list
gislist@lists.geocomm.com
http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
_________________________________
This list is brought to you by
The GeoCommunity
http://www.geocomm.com/
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
http://www.geobids.com
_______________________________________________
gislist mailing list
gislist@lists.geocomm.com
http://lists.geocomm.com/mailman/listinfo/gislist
_________________________________
This list is brought to you by
The GeoCommunity
http://www.geocomm.com/
Get Access to the latest GIS & Geospatial Industry RFPs and bids
http://www.geobids.com
|
|
Sponsored by:
For information
regarding
advertising rates
Click Here!
|
