Daniel, I guess it would make sense for you to contribute code at gwt-google-apis "vinays" branch.
Plan is to convert the existing JSIO dependent code to Overlay types and write test cases for the same. You may also opt to write missing types from JS API using Overlay types. Let me know what you would like to start with and whats the best way to sync-up between you and me? Thanks! -- Vinay Sekhri Google India +91.124.451.2822 Direct +91.9910.195.609 Mobile On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Daniel Bell <daniel.r.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Eric, Vinay. > Which project would you prefer I contributed the code to? So far I've I've > been working with a clone of the repo at gwt-google-maps-v3, but I'm happy > to switch to using the gwt-google-apis branch if that will help with > migration and API stability. > > > On 7 July 2010 21:50, Vinay Sekhri <vin...@google.com> wrote: > >> Hi Daniel, >> >> I was about to respond to you on different thread you wrote to me. Right >> now I am in process of adding new feature (without JSIO dependency) in my >> existing project and copy same to gwt-google-apis project. Once I understand >> things well, we will be in a better position to merge in official API -- >> this might take some time. >> >> On your question to contributing to gwt-google-maps-v3 : you create a >> clone of the existing repo, make your changes and send me the patches. Once >> we are on the same page on coding/design style, I can add you as a >> contributor to the project. >> >> Eric, I am running these two projects in parallel for now because I do not >> want existing user to suffer because this merge. >> >> Thanks! >> -- >> Vinay Sekhri >> Google India >> +91.124.451.2822 Direct >> +91.9910.195.609 Mobile >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Eric Ayers <zun...@google.com> wrote: >> >>> The author of that library has plans to migrate to overlay types. >>> We've got a change branch going on >>> http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis under changes/vinays/. >>> >>> >>> http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/source/browse/#svn/changes/vinays/gwt-google-maps-v3 >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Daniel Bell <daniel.r.b...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Thanks for the feedback. The reason I'm not using the official Maps API >>> is >>> > that I need to use version 3 of the JavaScript API, which isn't >>> supported by >>> > the GWT Google APIs project yet. The more developed of the GWT Maps >>> > Libraries (http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-maps-v3/) uses JSIO for >>> > everything, rather than overlay types, so I'm concerned about >>> performance in >>> > the case that lots (hundreds or so) of objects are being rendered on >>> the >>> > map. At the moment it's looking like I'll contribute some changes >>> there. >>> > Thanks again, >>> > Daniel >>> > >>> > On 7 July 2010 03:20, Eric Ayers <zun...@google.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Overlay types are the way to go. The gwt-maps API use jsio because it >>> >> predates overlay types. >>> >> >>> >> On Jul 6, 2010 11:18 AM, "John Tamplin" <j...@google.com> wrote: >>> >> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Bell < >>> daniel.r.b...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> I have a question for you about Overlay Types and the JSIO library. >>> >> >> I'm working on a GWT interface to the Google Maps JavaScript API, >>> and >>> >> >> am wondering about the difference in performance between the two >>> >> >> approaches. >>> >> >> With JSIO I've been using wrapper objects that each contain an >>> >> >> instance of a JavaScriptObject being wrapped, and contain a >>> reference >>> >> >> to a singleton instance of the flyweight wrapper. My guess is that >>> the >>> >> >> performance would be better if I used Overlay Types instead, but I >>> am >>> >> >> just guessing. Do you know (roughly) what the difference in >>> >> >> performance is between the two approaches? >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > First question - why aren't you using the official GWT APIs for Maps >>> >> > instead >>> >> > of writing your own? http://code.google.com/p/gwt-google-apis/ If >>> there >>> >> > is >>> >> > something you need that isn't included, why not contribute to that >>> >> > rather >>> >> > than create your own from scratch? >>> >> > >>> >> > Overlay types are a bit more efficient and don't require a generator >>> >> > running >>> >> > which makes DevMode faster, but I don't think there is a lot of >>> >> > difference. >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > John A. Tamplin >>> >> > Software Engineer (GWT), Google >>> >> > >>> >> > -- >>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> > >>> > -- >>> > http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Eric Z. Ayers >>> Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA >>> >> >> > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
