On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Nianwei Liu <nian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luke, > Very nice! I looked through your code and had a few observations/ > comments: > > -- In compiled version, no 'output_wrapper' was added as compile > parameter, the resulted script started with a global function b(). > There is a good chance of clashing with other code compiled without > the anonymous function wrapper. > I've added a output wrapper, thanks for picking that up. -- In the similar context as above, is it time to have a namespace? > Conversation started long time ago but never nailed down. > Sure, but we never came up with a good name :) The API team does not want to have the utility libraries use the google.* namespace because it can cause confusion as to what is a official library and what is not. I am totally open to using a namespace once we have decided on what, feel free to offer suggestions :) > -- are you using the jsdoc util in the project? I did not see any > @event annotation in the code and as far as I recall the doc util > won't produce event doc without it. If you are using a different jsdoc > tool, can that be shared in the util lib? There are some issues with > closure style type def syntax for the current tool. > -- I've been back and forth on coding styles trying to accommodate > needs of both exporting as a lib and at same time allow lib compiled > with app code together to take advantage of dead code removal. (That > may allow more code sharing between lib utils and potentially use the > util lib same way as closure lib, i.e. app code use pieces as needed > without include individual scripts, but that's a different > discussion). One issue is that the enumeration values such as your > RichMarkerPositions. The use code would have to use quote syntax > instead of the dot syntax which is more intuitive. I opted to move the > enums to an extern and use it when compiled as a lib but not use it > when compiled with app (that will cause the enums got renamed too > which is a good thing). Wondering what's your thoughts on that. > I did the RichMarkerPosition thing for improved readability of the code but I am tempted to ditch it and just allow strings to be passed in instead, what do you think? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group. > To post to this group, send email to > google-maps-js-api...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-maps-js-api-v3+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-maps-js-api-v3%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps JavaScript API v3" group. To post to this group, send email to google-maps-js-api...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-maps-js-api-v3+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.
