Hi,
i also think this is very interesting. However, and without having a look to
the code or how the integration is made, i don't think the Globe should be a
base layer. Instaead i concept like 'model' would be better (in my opinion). A
Map would then have a model (2D or 3D) and then base layers and overlays. This
way viewing the globe onr could change base layer and overlays the same way now
is made in 2D.
But again i haven't look in depth at it, so i migth be saying something wich
makes no sense.
Best regards
Javi
>________________________________
> De: Rodney Lorrimar <[email protected]>
>Para: Jonah Taylor <[email protected]>; [email protected]
>Enviado: Lunes 11 de junio de 2012 19:24
>Asunto: Re: [OpenLayers-Dev] I am working on an Openlayers adapter to the
>Cesium
>
>Hi Jonah,
>
>On Wednesday, May 23 2012, Jonah Taylor wrote:
>> Hello those at openlayers dev list. I just wanted to point out my
>> fork of openlayers and see if anyone was interested in helping out. I
>> have the basic editing tools example working using Cesium's 3D globe.
>>
>> Ttest it out here.
>
>That looks fantastic. I am interested in using this for my project, and
>helping to fix bugs if possible.
>
>I had a quick look at the example source. Is the gh-pages or master
>branch best to work with?
>
>Would it possible for Globe to be a base layer instead of an
>OpenLayers.Map? Then I could switch between normal tile layers and the
>WOW 3D! layer. I suppose there may be a technical reason, e.g. using a
>different renderer class or something.
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>Rodney
>_______________________________________________
>Dev mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/openlayers-dev
