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

pass GeoJSON in stringified form #2222

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 4, 2016
Merged

pass GeoJSON in stringified form #2222

merged 1 commit into from
Mar 4, 2016

Conversation

mourner
Copy link
Member

@mourner mourner commented Mar 4, 2016

This is a reapplication of #2001 without changing the API, and serves as the middle ground for improving setData performance as discussed in #1504.

cc @lucaswoj @jfirebaugh @dcervelli

This is a reapplication of #2001 without changing the API, and serves
as the middle ground for improving `setData` performance as discussed
in #1504.
@mourner mourner force-pushed the stringify-geojson branch from c634d8c to 7a12ac2 Compare March 4, 2016 17:26
@jfirebaugh
Copy link
Contributor

Given http://nolanlawson.com/2016/02/29/high-performance-web-worker-messages/ I wonder if we should just build JSON.stringify / JSON.parse into Actor.

@mourner
Copy link
Member Author

mourner commented Mar 4, 2016

@jfirebaugh I thought about that, but it's tricky because of transferables — you don't want to stringify an array buffer.

@jfirebaugh
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, it would have to be only if the buffers argument to send is undefined.

@lucaswoj
Copy link
Contributor

lucaswoj commented Mar 4, 2016

I'm 👍 on shipping this as-is and continuing to optimize per #1504 :shipit:

@mourner mourner merged commit 7a12ac2 into master Mar 4, 2016
@mourner mourner deleted the stringify-geojson branch March 4, 2016 21:38
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