Rolf Huehne wrote: > >There are two questions which seem important in this respect: > >Q1: Will Jmol 11.0 be fully compatible with older versions of Jmol.js >(e.g. from 10.00.36) ? > > > In terms of JavaScript, yes. There are a FEW minor issues going back that far, like "hbonds on" allowing you to see what hydrogen bonds were in a file prior to "hbonds calculate", but 11.0 is 99.8% compatible with 10.0.
>Q2: Will Jmol-11.js be fully backward compatible with older versions of >Jmol.js? > > absolutely. >If the second question is answered with yes, I dont't see any need to >have a new name for the library. Since the library doesn't seem to have >its own clear versioning scheme (e.g.: Jmol 10.00.36 -> Rev. 1.39; Jmol >10.2.00 -> Rev. 4833) it looks like it just belongs to the Jmol version >it is distributed with and should stick to its name. > >Currently we are using a modified version of Jmol.js from Jmol 10.00.36 >for our 'JenaLib Jmol Viewer'. >If question 1 is answered with no, we couldn't just switch to Jmol >11.0. At first I would have to understandd the changes in Jmol-11.js in >order be able to modify it for our viewer. > >Of course it would be best, if there would be no need to modify it at >all. As far as I understood, one of the two reasons for a modification >(adding message callback) will be obsolete, but there is still one >important modification left (as far as I know). >Maybe I should write a feature request on this, because I think it might >be useful for others too. Anyway, here is the basic idea of this quite >simple modification: > > > >The subroutine that sends a script to Jmol adds configurable 'pre' and >'post' scripts to each script. In the case of our viewer this is an >"echo Please wait..." before and an "echo off" afterwards. Since actions >in our viewer can take quite a while this is very important (even more >with older versions without script queuing!). > > > Sure, that's great. Right, so you have rewritten _jmolAddScript() (I would guess) to handle this. I don't see it as a general method, because there are all sorts of font and placement and other issues that one gets into in a general sense. But it sounds like a nice solution. My recommendation for such customizations is: 1) Leave Jmol.js as it is. 2) Make a new .js file "Jmol-local.js" and put just the modified functions in it. 3) load both files in your HTML. If that's too much of a hassle, then still do (1), but append to it a final "local section". You will have to test a bit to make sure that when you add this section to the new Jmol.js it does what you expect it to do. But that should at least be manageable. Enough people have suggested leaving this as Jmol.js, that I'm inclined to that's the decision. I look at a lot of pages to try to help people figure out what's wrong, so I thought it might be good to distinguish these, but I can always tell if someone is using Jmol-11.js just by adding "?NOAPPLET" to their URL and seeing what happens. Bob >Regards, >Rolf > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? >Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier >Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo >http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 >_______________________________________________ >Jmol-users mailing list >[email protected] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
