On Friday 02 March 2007, Bob Hanson wrote: > Q: Is this a good idea? I find 600+ still quite large... but a 42% reduction is not bad.
How does this, however, relate to the indexing? This indexing allows browsers to download just those JmolX.jar jars which are needed for the functionality... So, when using that set of jars instead of the singular Jmol.jar, then people would not even download 600k, or ... ? > Q: Has the Jmol applet gotten too large? > > Q: If so, what would the different "flavors" of Jmol include? The indexing already provides flavours... Jmol1.jar - Jmol9.jar (or something like that...) Egon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cologne University Bioinformatics Center (CUBIC) Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ GPG: 1024D/D6336BA6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
