WWJ SDK Alpha 4.1 - 0.4.1 available

[tag]

There will be an update to the code prior to JavaOne (May 5). We're calling it 0.5. Too much has been going on, mostly on the server side, to have done it sooner.

This updated version will point to new Solaris and Linux servers providing core imagery via WMS rather than the proprietary, single-platform, never ending maintenance headache tile server system we've suffered with. It will also point to an updated WFS server for placenames. The WMS server code is part of the release. (But it's very specific for WWJ needs, and not a general purpose solution like you'd get from GeoTools.) Both of these new servers use Squid for caching. We've also arranged for very high performance mirrored hosting, which will go on line in late May.

When we release 1.0 we expect to place it in a public subversion system.

Thanks for your patience. Non uno die roma aedificata est.

[tve]

Originally Posted by tag

...
Thanks for your patience. Non uno die roma aedificata est.

tag,
Thanks for the response! Glad to hear that changes aren't going to be too dramatic. Looking forward to the release.
Rome may not have been built in a day, but it sure burned down fast (just kidding) This project is the most exciting thing I have seen come along ... well for as long as I remember.
Thanks!
-tve

[patmurris]

Originally Posted by tag

...the proprietary, single-platform, never ending maintenance headache tile server system we've suffered with.

I can think of some very french ways to say that

[tag]

Good. I've said them in all the languages I know.

[bull]

Hmm, how is this going to affect WW .NET, will we need to point to the new servers or make code changes?

[tag]

This will not affect WW.net at all. It and WWJ are two completely separate efforts. Nothing WWJ does ever affects WW.net. (We no longer provide development for WW.net. We currently just keep the servers it uses running.)

[adamhill]

I guess the correct question is *can* we point a WMS layer at the new servers for WW.Net and make it an official new datasource? Are they better, faster, stronger?

adam...

[nlneilson]

From my experience going the other way, pulling data from the WW.net server into WWJ, there should only be a few code changes to be able to get data from the WWJ server into WW.net. It is basically the same data except served in the .dds format.

To answer this question since the .dds format is bigger:

Originally Posted by adamhill

Are they better, faster, stronger?

The tile sizes are bigger, Bigger, BIGGER!

[bull]

so it will be slower and use more bandwidth? Wha about the quality? Are the dds tiles using less compression hence giving better quality, or is it more of a technical issue?

[patmurris]

As i understand, the advantage with dds is fast loading from disk to the gpu for better interactivity (needs less cpu processing then jpegs for instance). However, the WMS server should be able to provide other images formats, so it should be no problem for WW.net to tap into it, at least to see how it compares.