Egon Willighagen wrote: > On Saturday 07 October 2006 05:02, Bob Hanson wrote: > >> What's the rationale behind having JmolApplet[0-6].jar vis-a-vis >> JmolApplet.jar itself? Is there supposed to be some advantage to using >> JmolApplet0.jar instead of JmolApplet.jar? I guess I was under the >> impression that perhaps only a subset of 0-6 would load initially, but I >> see from my server log that they are all delivered in quick succession. >> > > It should depend on the functionality used. It will first just load the > Jmol0.jar which, IIRC, will just show the "loading Jmol" view... after that > depending on the functionality used, other jars are loaded... apparently, the > applet you looked at when seeing which jars loaded uses a lot of > functionality. > >
My understanding also. But I am not 100% sure that the jars are only loaded when needed. >> Is it actually faster one way or the other? Is there a way, perhaps, to >> have a minimal subset of Jmol load initially, and then have other parts >> load later? >> > > No, I think this indexing is the only way. I've never 'done' it, but I can > assume that a reindexing with all the refactoring might be in order... or?? > > > Yes, it could be done. We would need to get a correct list of the minimal set of packages needed for : - just showing the "Loading applet message" - having an empty but working applet - ... Nico ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
