> Extra thought : Do you think there would be advantages at refactoring Jmol.js
> code in much the same way as Chemdoodle's? (I can only see one : the
> namespace concern and many drawbacks : the backward compatibility break).
>
>
> Lots could be done with Jmol.js. What do you mean "in the same way as
> ChemDoodle's"? You mean having it much more object oriented?
>
Yes, that was my thought : using the same module pattern for Jmol
(http://addyosmani.com/resources/essentialjsdesignpatterns/book/#modulepatternjavascript).
It might not be worth the effort. It's just that I can see more and more
libraries using these patterns and when you have to mix them all it could be
more convenient. But that may not be a concern for Jmol's audience, hence my
question.
-Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second.
Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You.
Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2
_______________________________________________
Jmol-users mailing list
Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
