[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 20:32 24/07/2006, Didier PH Martin wrote:
>Didier replies:
>Jeff, the latest release was in 2004 and we are in 2006. From what I
>understood, CML has already a Java interpreter translating CML into a 3D
>representation.
Yes - http://www.jmol.org. Try it - it's very well done
> The main critic is that it takes a long time to be
>downloaded into a browser.
That is true, although it's bearable. Sometimes it doesn't load
although they have worked hard
> The facts are:
>- there is a CML view written and Java, displaying a 3D view and able to
>display CML documents. (ex:
>http://jodi.tamu.edu/Articles/v05/i01/Murray-Rust/datument/mol2d3d.html)
>- the critic is that it take a long time to download the applets. I noticed
>that in the previous example, the applet wasn't packaged in such ways to be
>signed and made available in the cached code. Having it cached in the client
>machine would reduce tremendously the download time.
Yes. I think that would be much appreciated by the community. Also it
doesn't have to be an applet
>Therefore, I have now a question for Peter: Why the applet is not packaged
>as a cacheable component. Both firefox and Microsoft support this feature. I
>am not sure Opera and Safari support it. Is it because of Safari and Opera?
>If yes, why not use an <iframe> element loading a small engine able to
>recognize the different environments are let the browser load the cacheable
>applet when available (Firefox and Mozilla - 96% of the market). And make it
>loadable like it is right now for the remaining small fraction of the market
>(4%). I have some trouble to see why this wasn't done when you are ready to
>build from scratch a new solution? I am puzzled Peter ????
I'm not sure what the value of this is because I am not an applet
expert. But the guys who write Jmol know enough to do this if it's valuable
>I did a small experiment with an applet I made for the fun of it. I packaged
>it as a cacheable component for both mozilla and IE. The load time was
>reduced tremendously. I wasn't able to reduce the load time of the
>interpreter though, this is under the control of the VM provider (IBM or
>Sun) and the plug-in provider (sun). So, is the time taken to load the
>interpreter environment the issue?
>
>I am trying to understand the real issues here.
It is worth mailing the Jmol list if you want to know details
P.
Peter Murray-Rust
Unilever Centre for Molecular Sciences Informatics
University of Cambridge,
Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
|
