Hi Bob,
I think this is a good idea. Cutting down on the initial load time,
and menu complexity, would be quite helpful. It may also help with
what I think of as "ramping up" time, the time between the applet
loading and the structure appearing, which on my Mac G4 powerbook
(1GHz with a gig of RAM) is perhaps 5-10 seconds. A lag occurs every
time a new pdb file is loaded, even when loading local pdb files, so
it is not server-induced.
Presumably Jmol is ramping up in some way for its multitudinous
functions. With a smaller applet, fewer functions, I am hoping this
time will be lessened as well. (This time lag was not present in Jmol
9 and (I think) was much less in early versions of 10, so it seems
like it must be due to the many new additions to the applet during
Jmol 10 development).
I think some of this lag may be due to Apple's implementation of
Java, because Win machines seem to load the structures more quickly
and be more responsive in general. Also the new Intel Macs seem
better. In any case, giving Java less to do will help Mac users have
less lag time and increase the responsiveness of Jmol.
I think your initial suggestions for the different JmolAppletLite
version names are sensible and intuitive. It might also be helpful to
spilt off some individual functions that are quite large - for
example, if isosurface components are a big chunk, perhaps they could
be contained in a separate JmolSurfaces 'cassette' that could be
loaded (or not) along with any of the Lite versions.
Best,
Frieda
On Mar 2, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Bob Hanson wrote:
Jmol users,
I have an idea for slimming down the Jmol applet and need comments.
The
idea is that few people will use ALL the capabilities of Jmol. Perhaps
there should be a set of Jar files that are optional add-ons to a
basic
package. This package might have just a couple of file readers, no
language translation, no crystallographic symmetry, no
draw/isosurface/pmesh, no biomolecular cartoons, no navigation, no
popup
menu, etc. -- some agreed upon mimimum.
Then the page developer might add on jar files that fit the need. This
could be customized in a variety of ways.
I've experimented some and found using a little home-brew server that
several parts of Jmol were loading unnecessarily -- Draw, for example,
and SymmetryOperations, and some others. I've found a minimum set that
brings the Jar file size down to 695K -- that's about 58% of the full
package.
Q: Is this a good idea?
Q: Has the Jmol applet gotten too large?
Q: If so, what would the different "flavors" of Jmol include?
Mind you, you could always use the full jar file or a given Jar
file and
one or two extra files.
Ideas I can imagine include:
JmolAppletLite
JmolAppletOrganic
JmolAppletBio
JmolAppletXtal
Obviously the popup menu would have to be different for each -- I have
an idea to make that a loadable/customizable resource anyway.
Thoughts?
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
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-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
///////////////////////////////////////////
Frieda Reichsman, PhD
Molecules in Motion
Interactive Molecular Structures
http://www.moleculesinmotion.com
///////////////////////////////////////////
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
