Egon Willighagen wrote: >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 ... ? > > > My check with my own server suggests that using "JmolApplet0.jar" and thus setting up the multiple jar load is no great advantage -- all 7 jar files are downloaded in quick succession, far sooner than access to those is required. However, if the Jar files are unpacked, and class files are present in the proper directories, then those class files are downloaded only when needed. Perhaps I'm missing something. Does anyone else have access to a server log? Robert Lancashire, maybe you can test this -- on a page using an initialization specifying JmolApplet0.jar, does your server NOT send all the jar files?
>>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...) > > > I'd like more evidence that this is true. >Egon > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
