> Nico, yes, I think we can have it both ways. Within Java, what we can do > is pass a true Java class object. It might take some thinking to set > that up properly. Basically we can have getProperty() as accessed by > JavaScript return a different type of value as getProperty() as accessed > by Java. The idea would be: > > a) renaming the function in viewer, perhaps to getPropertyJSON()
getJsonProperty() > b) having applet.Jmol expose getProperty() as an alias for > viewer.getPropertyJSON. No, we are not going to call it one thing in JavaScript and another thing inside the implementation. getJsonProperty() > c) writing a new viewer.getProperty() that delivers equivalent Java > objects. getJsonProperty() would be implemented on top of getProperty() > d) copying or moving the getProperty() declarations from the > WrappedApplet interface to (where?). Methods are exposed and made public in org.jmol.api Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Jmol-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-developers
