Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DataSources batch different geometry types together #6239

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 22, 2018
Merged

Conversation

hpinkos
Copy link
Contributor

@hpinkos hpinkos commented Feb 20, 2018

Instead of creating one GeometryVisualizer per geometry type, we now create one GeometryVisualizer that handles all of the geometry types. This allows us to batch more geometries together at the DataSource level.

This does include some breaking changes because params changed for GeometryVisualizer and GeometryUpdater

Other details:

  • Create PolylineVisualizer for handling polylines
  • Separate out polyline specific logic from GeometryVisualizer
  • GeometryVisualizer handles box, corridor, ellipse, ellipsoid, plane, polygon, polyline volume, rectangle and wall
  • Add <Type>GeometryUpdater.id. This is needed so a batch can include multiple geometry related to the same entity.
  • Minor code cleanup

@cesium-concierge
Copy link

Signed CLA is on file.

@hpinkos, thanks for the pull request! Maintainers, we have a signed CLA from @hpinkos, so you can review this at any time.

⚠️ I noticed that CHANGES.md has not been updated. If this change updates the public API in any way, fixes a bug, or makes any non-trivial update, please add a bullet point to CHANGES.md and comment on this pull request so we know it was updated. For more info, see the Pull Request Guidelines.


I am a bot who helps you make Cesium awesome! Contributions to my configuration are welcome.

🌍 🌎 🌏

@hpinkos hpinkos requested a review from mramato February 20, 2018 19:54
@hpinkos hpinkos mentioned this pull request Feb 21, 2018
1 task
@mramato
Copy link
Contributor

mramato commented Feb 22, 2018

Thanks @hpinkos. I actually don't have any comments other than what we discussed offline for future PRs.

I think this will enable some pretty good additional optimizations in the future.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants