On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:12, Adam DuVander<mapstraction at duvander.com>
wrote:> Hi Ed,
>
> There was a short discussion about Google Maps v3 when it came out. The
> challenge is making it available, while also continuing to support v2 for
> now. The Mapstraction v2 architecture makes this easier, but I think this
> means we''d need to have two separate names for the two
implementations of
> Google Maps.
something like mxn.core.googlev3.js sounds good to me
One question to the group, our motivation for using v3 is two fold
a. it is claimed to be faster. Does anyone have any validation of
this? If there''s no actual performance increase it may not be worth
it.
b. it doesn''t require API keys. We have lots of different domains so
avoiding the need to herd the keys would make life a bit simpler.
has anyone out there made the switch?
thanks
>
> Andrew, Derek--please confirm?
>
> --Adam
> ---
> Adam DuVander
> I like maps: http://mapscripting.com
> I like simple: http://adamduvander.com
>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Ed Freyfogle wrote:
>
>> sorry if this has previously been discussed.
>>
>> Does mxn v2 work with google maps v3?
>>
>> http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/v3/
>>
>> if not, is anyone interested in working on it (for money I mean,
>> obviously everyone on this list is keen to play around with map apis)?
>> We''re keen to get the speed improvement of v3, but would still
like to
>> have the flexibility of mxn.
>>
>> We don''t have a lot of spare internal resources to throw at
this so
>> could possibly fund someone to spend some time working on this.
>>
>> Pls let me know if you''re interested
>>
>> thx.
>> Ed
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mapstraction mailing list
>> Mapstraction at lists.mapstraction.com
>>
http://lists.mapstraction.com/listinfo.cgi/mapstraction-mapstraction.com
>
>