A few things related to the memory constraints: 1) The available memory is limited by the set up of the JavaVM on the users computer. I believe 64 Mb is the default. If you need more you could supply instructions to the user on how to reset their JavaVM. There can also be issues with the browser's use of memory.
2)Is Sage using the whole JmolApplet.jar or allowing Jmol to load pieces as needed starting with JmolApplet0.jar (may have the name wrong)? If these parts are in the Jmol applet directory, just specifying the path to the applet directory on the server should load the pieces only as needed. This will save memory and network bandwidth. 3) Unloading the applet, when a plot isn't being used, might work. I am not sure it can be done without reloading the whole page. Once the applet is in the java cache you wouldn't have to move that across the network, so I don't think transit time would be a problem. I'll ask around on the Jmol lists. Jonathan On Sep 26, 2:38 am, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > On Sep 25, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Jason Grout wrote: > > > > > William Stein wrote: > > >> We could try changing how jmol is used in Sage as follows: when the > >> user isn't actively using the 3d image, it is replaced by a static > >> png. Then there would be at most 1 jmol applet per page. > > > That seems to be how mathematica does things. At least, when I have > > compiz turned on, I physically see the static figure be replaced > > (with a > > window swooping in) by a window that lets me rotate, and when I let > > go, > > the figure is redrawn as a static image. Sometimes this is really > > annoying, as I have to wait for the figure to be changed. > > > In our case, it sounds like we would have to wait for a round trip to > > the server every time we tried rotating things? (or maybe we'd wait a > > few seconds, and then replaced it?) > > > Is there any chance of making a "lite jmol" that was took much less > > than > > around 64/10=6.4M of memory? Surely there is a lot in jmol that we > > don't use or need at the moment. > > That'd be cool, but I doubt the 6.4M memory used is stuff we don't > use--the memory-intensive part is probably the rendering itself > (which we can't get by without). It'd be easy to see--how does the > memory footprint vary with the applet size? > > I think the idea of keeping a single applet, and shifting it around, > is a cool one, if it can be made snappy enough. Usually you only want > to manipulate the one you just made anyways. > > - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
