AnsweredAssumed Answered

Add multiple layers to map pointing to same table

Question asked by minerjoe Champion on Jan 9, 2018

In our offline maps the users require that they be able to view a specific linear features in multiple ways.  This is a pretty standard need within our industry.  These layers also happen to be quite large ~600 Mb.  The hope was that we could have a single replica of this data and render it multiple ways in the offline map.  Identical to how you would do in ArcMap or ArcGIS Pro by adding a layer from the same table symbolized differently.


I was able to write a tool and uses different services to generate the renderers serialized into json, which I thought was going to be the hurdle to overcome.  Using these files it is possible to create a feature layer and use the json to create the renderer as hoped.  Unfortunately, from what I see this approach is not possible.  It would seem that for some reason a GeodatabaseFeatureTable can only be used as the source for a single FeatureLayer.  When the application tries to create the second FeatureLayer the following error occurs:


Esri.ArcGISRuntime.ArcGISRuntimeException: Object already owned.: Already owned.
at Esri.ArcGISRuntime.ArcGISException.HandleCoreError(CoreError error, Boolean throwException)
at RuntimeCoreNet.GeneratedWrappers.Interop.CheckError(IntPtr errorHandle, Boolean throwOnFailure, GCHandle wrapperHandle)
at RuntimeCoreNet.GeneratedWrappers.CoreFeatureLayer..ctor(CoreFeatureTable featureTable)
at Esri.ArcGISRuntime.Mapping.FeatureLayer..ctor(FeatureTable featureTable)

Why?  What is the reasoning behind only allowing a GeodatabaseFeatureTable to be 'owned' by a single FeatureLayer?  Is there something else I am possibly doing that would cause this error or is this idea something that is not possible?  The ability to apply different renders and/or definition expressions to the same GeodatabaseFeatureTable would allow us to greatly reduce the footprint of offline replicas and reduce the amount of data syncronization required so it would be a great solution.