Thanks for the suggestions. I like the script tag injector idea. I'm currently using AjaxLoader in to load the v2 API when the user navigates to the page with the map in it. I did try the using AjaxLoader.loadApi() to get the Maps v3 API (using the same params described in the forum post you mentioned), but the map did not load in IE, and there were exceptions in Firefox, so I just used the <script> tag. Maybe I'll revisit that later.
On 8 July 2010 11:29, Eric Ayers <zun...@google.com> wrote: > There are reports of success loading the v3 API with the AJAX Loader > (aka Common Loader). The AjaxLoader Java support is API agnostic. > You should be able to provide the same parameters to > AjaxLoader.loadApi() as described in the forum post below: > > http://www.devcomments.com/Loading-v3-with-google-load-at93219.htm > > From a performance perspective, the common loader will be slower than > just including the <script> tag to load the API. I think that is why > it isn't being promoted heavily. That and the lack of need for an API > key makes it less compelling to use the AjaxLoader classes. You could > write a simple <script> tag injector for the v3 Maps API that works > like the AjaxLoader class does if you wanted the delayed load of the > Maps API from GWT code. The simplest thing to do is to just add the > <script> tag in your hosted page, though. > > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Daniel Bell <daniel.r.b...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi Vinay, > > That sounds good. I'll probably start with converting some of the code > using > > JSIO to use overlay types, because that's what I'm using for my current > > project. Regarding testing, it seems that the tests used in the > > gwt-google-apis Maps v2 API use the gwt-google-apis > > AjaxLoader implementation to load the API, but that the underlying > > AjaxLoader only supports Maps v2. Do you know if there are plans to add > v3 > > support to the AjaxLoader? > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > > > On 8 July 2010 01:35, Vinay Sekhri <vin...@google.com> wrote: > >> > >> 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 > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Eric Z. Ayers > Google Web Toolkit, Atlanta, GA USA > -- http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
