Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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
|
