On 2005-02-08 (09:12) Miguel wrote: >Tamas wrote: > >>Theoretically I agree, however, this restriction is quite >>unfriendly >a= nd >>reduces the usefullnes. > >Tamas, > > >These security restrictions are placed upon *all* applets. They are >enforced by the Java Virtual Machine. They are independent of Jmol. >
all _unsigned_ applets, right? at one point a signed Jmol applet was on the table; is that still an option, and would it solve this problem? if it is purely a $$ thing, perhaps we can set up a paypal donation account to fund the signing. >Unsigned applets are designed to be downloaded from the web and >incorporated into a web page without any intervention from the user. >Therefore, they are assumed to be malicious. > >This applies to all applets and is not specific to Jmol. > I think this restriction is necessary. >>From this respect the plugin solution is better, even if it must be >>installed by the user. (A plugin cannot be malicious?). Maybe it >>would be good that when locally initianting, the applet could read >>relatively downwards the directory tree, but not upwards (so >>absolute paths and ../ are not allowed, but ./fee/foo/this.mol yes) > I like signed applet better than a plug-in, but I'm biased. regards, tim -- Timothy Driscoll molvisions - see, grasp, learn. <http://www.molvisions.com/> usa:north carolina:wake forest "...90% of everything is crud." - Theodore Sturgeon ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
