Overall, I've started a very targeted port, just doing the classes I absolutely need, and the classes they absolutely need, etc, starting with org.jmol.viewer. I'm working on a NET3d class, parallel to Swing3d and Awt3d, to do .NET specific rendering.
A few problems and my current solutions:
* The "upgrade wizard" does not do a good job with the javax.vecmath classes; it gets over-excited about converting get/set methods to "properties", which have a slightly different api; I have to un-property-ify them by hand. To minimize work, I'm trying to port only the classes that are actually used by Jmol.
* The "upgrade wizard" just gives up on anything related to UI or ImageProducers/ImageConsumers. I'll be adapting a DoubleBufferedPanel colleagues at Brown wrote, to actually hold the rendered images, and using a built in Microsoft Image class. I really hope this gives good enough performance, but it will be a few days before I can tell for sure.
* For a first approximation, I'm not planning to port much of the user interface, since most of what we need is at the API-level. We've got very naive users and we don't need to give them all of the flexibility of real Jmol.
I am concerned that I haven't been able to get it to be a turnkey process. Perhaps as I learn more about the process, I will be able to capture the post-"upgrade wizard" steps in a perl script.
Anything stick out as a bad idea or worrisome here? -sascha
--- Begin Message ---Sascha wrote:> I'm sorry I seemed cavalier about the open source issues. [snip] No problem > Thanks for clarifying the GPL. I didn't quite understand that if I use > it I have to make the modified source available under the LGPL. LGPL allows you to use it as a component ... like a library. But if you want to modify it ... and certainly if you want to use it to develop a derivitave work ... then the derived work must be made available under the LGPL. > The lawyers are all on vacation now, so I'm going to take a few days > to see if I can get it to work -- if it does, then I'll definitely > contact the IP lawyers and have them get in touch with you. OK > Some issues to consider when we bring the lawyers into the conversation: > > * We're planning to use it for students in a Brown organic chemistry > class, and probably to demo to our sponsors (commercial & > governmental) and at technical conferences. Does that count as > distribution? Yes. I suspect that the terms of the GNU licenses will be quite familiar to the legal staff. And I suspect that they will already have a predetermined disposition towards use and reuse of open source software. > * I might try some rendering additions-- shadows, particularly. My > understanding is that I'd have to contribute this back -- which > probably means that I should do it in java then port it to J#, so it's > available in both Jmol and Jmol/J#. I think that makes sense. > Shall we move this discussion off the jmol-users list? Yes. We should move it to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Miguel ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
--- End Message ---
