v 5.2.1.1547 is available at the developer channel

[Josh L]

Hi all,

We have made 5.2.1.1547 available on the developer channel, compiled
against version 1.005 of the Google Earth API.

This is an update to 5.2.1.1329 and fixes a number of issues. One bug
in particular that is related to issue 481 (http://code.google.com/p/
earth-api-samples/issues/detail?id=481) has been tackled, so if you
have been affected by this issue you may wish to install this version.

The developer channel documentation should be updated shortly to make
note
of this new release, which you can install from the download link at
http://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/developer_channel.html


Currently the windows version is available, and the mac version
should be available very shortly.

Cheers,

-Josh

[Greg-WBSR]

Thanks for the heads-up and thanks for helping get a issue I was
having before resolved (partly, but good enough for now)
I am referring to
http://groups.google.com/group/google-earth-browser-plugin/browse_thread/thread/45fa74d39ba3f3c4/159dd63cb420d6d1#159dd63cb420d6d1

Greg

On Aug 5, 11:34 am, Josh L wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have made 5.2.1.1547 available on the developer channel,  compiled
> against version 1.005 of the Google Earth API.
>
> This is an update to 5.2.1.1329 and fixes a number of issues.  One bug
> in particular that is related to issue 481 (http://code.google.com/p/
> earth-api-samples/issues/detail?id=481) has been tackled, so if you
> have been affected by this issue you may wish to install this version.
>
> The developer channel documentation should be updated shortly to make
> note

> of this new release, which you can install from the download link athttp://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/developer_channel.html

[StarTraX]

It also appears to fix issue #268:
http://code.google.com/p/earth-api-samples/issues/detail?id=268&can=5&colspec=ID%20Type%20Summary%20Component%20OpSys%20Browser%20Status%20Stars%20Internal
But I have two gripes:
1. It would be really helpful if the release not not only reported new
features, but also fixed bugs. Then we would know what to expect and
2. I don't understand the reference on the Developer Channel page
http://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/developer_channel.html
which says:
"Specifying the API version

In order to gain access to the new API features, you must load the 1.x
version of the API:

google.load("earth", "1.x");"
You don't specify what x is, and anyway, it doesn't seem to make any
difference - I'm happily running 1.005 even though I'm specifying
google.load('earth', '1');

Keep up the good work, it's an awesome product.

On Aug 6, 4:34 am, Josh L wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have made 5.2.1.1547 available on the developer channel,  compiled
> against version 1.005 of the Google Earth API.
>
> This is an update to 5.2.1.1329 and fixes a number of issues.  One bug
> in particular that is related to issue 481 (http://code.google.com/p/
> earth-api-samples/issues/detail?id=481) has been tackled, so if you
> have been affected by this issue you may wish to install this version.
>
> The developer channel documentation should be updated shortly to make
> note

> of this new release, which you can install from the download link athttp://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/developer_channel.html

[Josh L]

Hi there,

Thanks for the useful feedback.

1) When we do the official (non-beta) release notes, we'll link to
closed issues as well as note the new features (see
http://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/releasenotes.html) -
or did you mean something else?

2) You are correct and this is not needed. I will remove it from the
developer channel documentation.

Cheers,

-Josh


On Aug 6, 3:01 pm, StarTraX wrote:
> It also appears to fix issue #268:http://code.google.com/p/earth-api-samples/issues/detail?id=268&can=5...

> But I have two gripes:
> 1. It would be really helpful if the release not not only reported new
> features, but also fixed bugs. Then we would know what to expect and

> 2. I don't understand the reference on the Developer Channel pagehttp://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/developer_channel.html

[StarTraX]

Hi Josh,
Thanks for point 2. It's a bit scary as a private developer to post a
public criticsm of the work of a big guy like Google, so
it's good to get a positive response when I hit the mark, not because
I scored a point against the big guy at all, but to confirm that I'm
finally getting to grips with the tool.

I think I speak for many of us developers when I say that we have an
enormous learning curve to master the API and we do rely very heavily
on the documented specifications to take us forward, so when we hit a
challenge (as we do every day!) we need to know we can rely 100% on
the accuracy of the documentation. So it really is incredibly
important for us to that it's squeaky clean.

Which brings me back to point 1...
this beta - non-beta thing is a bit confusing, especially as you now
point me to the doco of 5.2.1.1329 for a sample of non-beta release
notes but 5.2.1.1329 IS STILL BETA!!!

Please - I don't think there would be any argument from developers -
the release notes should be published at the time of the release -
whether it's Beta or final.

> On Aug 10, 3:05 am, Josh L wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Thanks for the useful feedback.
>
> 1) When we do the official (non-beta) release notes, we'll link to

> closed issues as well as note the new features (seehttp://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/releasenotes.html) -

[Josh L]

Hi again,

First, constructive criticism is great - your useful feedback is
really helpful and appreciated by us and the developer community who
will benefit from it.

As to the release notes, my wording was unclear (at best) when I
pointed you to the release notes page (which lists all previous
releases). I meant to say that when we do any release (and the next
one after 1547 is likely to be the final non-beta release) the release
notes should include both the bugs we fixed (some of which may have a
public facing issue to link to) as well as the new features. I
mostly wanted to make sure that you were not expecting something
different than what we're providing already in the release notes.

The developer channel release is new to the plug-in, but the release
notes for the developer channel 1547 version should be up very
shortly, and when the public (non-beta) release is out the release
notes will be updated again with any new bug fixes and features, as
applicable.

Finally, just a note that the general documentation (unlike the
release notes) are generally not updated for a developer channel or
beta release, but you can expect the documentation to be updated
shortly after the official release. The developer channel
documentation should include the new methods available in the meantime
in the latest available version.

Hope this helps,

-Josh

[StarTraX]

Thanks for your considered reply, much appreciated.
While we're talking about documentation... As I noted earlier, we
developers have to rely on the accuracy of documentation to take us
forward - particularly when debugging, it's critical to get an
accurate understanding of how a feature works - so we spend a lot of
time poring over the specs and in particular the examples to see what
the spec "really meant" (they can be a bit cryptic!).

When I went to use the new getElementById method, I found the
following example at http://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/accessors.html#getElementById:

var overlay = ge.createPhotoOverlay('graceland_panorama');
ge.getFeatures().appendChild(overlay);
ge.getElementById('graceland_panorama');

Now, while it's perfectly syntactically correct - it doesn't relate to
the real world - you would never write that last line. You would use
it like:
myFeature = ge.getElementById('graceland_panorama');
or
ge.getElementById('graceland_panorama').getFeatures().appendChild(myFolder);

The whole point is that it is a method which returns a "feature
object", and IMHO that really should be demonstrated in the example.

[James Lamanna]

Hi Josh,
Nice to see that it will be out of "beta" soon.
One question that I put on the dev channel, are the set/getOpacity()
functions safe to use yet?
The API documentation still says these are experimental.

Thanks.

On Aug 12, 6:11 pm, StarTraX wrote:
> Thanks for your considered reply, much appreciated.
> While we're talking about documentation... As I noted earlier, we
> developers have to rely on the accuracy of documentation to take us
> forward - particularly when debugging, it's critical to get an
> accurate understanding of how a feature works - so we spend a lot of
> time poring over the specs and in particular the examples to see what
> the spec "really meant" (they can be a bit cryptic!).
>
> When I went to use the new getElementById method, I found the

> following example athttp://code.google.com/apis/earth/documentation/accessors.html#getEle...

[Greg-WBSR]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents - and if you knew me, you would know I
always have an opinion and love to share it -

There have been a few posts recently regarding the updating of/
documentation of etc GE and its API and Plugin. So this reply is aimed
at those posts as much as this one.

Constructive criticism is one thing, but complaining about how things
are/were or will be, about a FREE to use program is a bit much -
especially when some people are trying to take this FREE program, re-
brand it - re-package it (while maybe adding a bit of functionality to
it) and trying to SELL it !!

I hope people charging money to use their 'version' of GE give 110%
support and documentation.

This is my view at the moment, however I reserve the right to change
it, when and if Google change their side of things - ie if they start
some kind of compulsory showing of google adsense or something silly
like that, I will not be a fan.

there is an old saying that applies here -

You get what you pay for!


I, for one, am very happy with this product, even if it is not 100%
perfect. I appreciate the work being done by Google and their
employees / representatives.

Cheers
Greg

[michaelK123]

Thanks Greg for your views. You are right, of course, about the free
software and its capabilities. Something that is free shouldn't be
complained about too rigorously.
However, there are some of us that pay an annual licence of US$11,000
(minimum ) as Enterprise customers just so we can use the plugin
behind corporate firewalls.

Obviously, that is not an insignifcant amount of money, so Enterprise
customers have much higher expectations and justifiably so. Not
everyone who posts on this forum is using the software for free.

Cheers
Michael

> > > > > > > >   -Josh- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[pmolsen]

One request in relation to GE releases. Is it possible to put the full
release on the GE download page please. At present it doesn't even say
Version 5.2, merely Version 5. There is no indication of which release
level.

Sure one can go Help/Check for Updates via GE but it would be nice to
see on the download page exactly which release is current.

[Josh L]

Thanks all for the valuable suggestions above. Some quick notes:

- StarTrax: Thanks for the specific feedback. I'll update the
documentation shortly so this example is more clear.

- James: It is safe for you to use them if they are working as you
expect. We do not have plans to remove this functionality, and we do
have plans to remove the experimental label as soon as we have a few
more tests in place (and assuming those tests confirm it all works as
expected :)

- Michael: If you are an Enterprise customer, you should have access
do additional and robust support outside of this forum (although of
course we're not happy to try answer your questions here as well).

- pmolsen: Yes this is a good idea, and I will pass on that request.

Cheers,

-Josh