On Oct 5, 6:17 pm, Tim G <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Larry. I'm not sure what I can do on the lobbying front but > I'll at least put it in there and keep my fingers crossed.
First thing would be to post a link to the issue in this thread, like this: http://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-issues/issues/detail?id=2764 (I gave it a star) Then anyone that finds this thread can find the issue and star it if they think it should be fixed or are interested in following it. The development team is probably correct in their take that this isn't a large use case, but they also want v3 to be the "official" Google Maps API, so I think they can't arbitrarily drop functionality in favor of performance, at least not without giving access to that functionality for those willing to suffer the performance hit... -- Larry > > On Oct 5, 9:14 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Oct 5, 5:56 pm, Tim G <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree with Larry, it would be nice if there was some alternate > > > solution that at least gave you something comparable to v2 > > > functionality when you use similar classes. > > > Based on Ben Appletons post: > > + If there's a lot of demand we can look into allowing much higher > > + stroke weights, bearing in mind that this may slow down rendering. > > > the best course forward is to create an enhancement request (although > > I would probably class it as an > > issue/defect):http://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-issues/issues/list?can=2&q=apitype... > > and lobby developers for stars... > > > -- Larry- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-js-api-v3?hl=en.
