[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, February 28, 2005 12:34 pm, timothy driscoll said:
if they are working correctly, the compatibility checks should not add any overhead to Jmol operations as long as the system passes the checks.
Maybe not to operations but there would be some overhead to do the checks in the first place. I don't have any experience doing this so I can't say if this would take any noticeable time (assuming a worst-case) over the applet loading itself but, if it does, I would want to be able to opt-out of doing the checks for the environemnt in which I run.
From my experience, on the order of 5-10 milliseconds, top. Overhead in terms of raw bytes transmitted: almost nothing. Remember, it's once per load. Not a big deal.
Bob
Rich
------------------------------------------------------- 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_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
--
Robert M. Hanson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 507-646-3107 Professor of Chemistry, St. Olaf College 1520 St. Olaf Ave., Northfield, MN 55057 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.stolaf.edu/people/hansonr
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Albert Einstein
------------------------------------------------------- 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_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list Jmol-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
