On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:55 AM, David Joyner wrote: > Speaking from ignorance, I'm not enthusiastic about a java requirement > but can be convinced otherwise. > (1) Can we realy distribute it now (since it is not yet GPL'd)?
Java would be a platform that we would assume they already have. We wouldn't need to distribute it any more than we'd be distributing the browser or OS that they're using. This might be an issue if we have to re-distribute the java3d framework. > (2) is it really fast? I have found that java is annoyingly slow. > In fact, I usually block java (for security reasons, among others) > on my browsers. Java with a JIT compiler can be very fast, and this library links directly to OpenGL, etc. so is quite fast (smooth real-time movement even with the very complicated objects I've seen in demos). Startup time is usually the main lag. I hate sites that use java for, say, their nav menu or buttons, but I think it is the perfect fit for something like this. > (3) Is it really cross-platform? From Debian to FreeBSD to Mac OSX > to windows? Java itself is very cross-platform, there are (currently closed- source) VM's for everything from cell phones to sun workstations. If it's not available it's probably for political reasons (e.g. GPL issues on Linux or competitive practices by Microsoft). The java3d libraries are available for linux, solaris, mac, and windows, and the license (although not GPL compatible) allows, among other things, one to build and re-distribute for any platform. I would say that I think Java is the tool for the job, but the question is to roll our own "pure" java 3d viewer (without all the bells and whistles like colored lights, bump-maps, fog, and graphics- card acceleration) or use the already-existing java3d api. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > William Stein wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:50:15 -0800, Robert Bradshaw >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> I've been looking into the java3d api stuff. ( https:// >>> java3d.dev.java.net/ )It has about every feature you can imagine >>> and is >>> very fast (especially if you have OpenGL on your machine). There >>> is only >>> one problem--it is an optional package. In fact, most people who >>> have >>> java won't even have it installed. I think requiring users to >>> install it >>> is not only a hassle but also one benefit of the notebook is that we >>> make no assumptions other than a relatively modern browser. Is >>> this too >>> much of an obstacle? >>> >> >> I don't know. I'd like to get feedback from more people. Already >> requiring >> JAVA is an obstacle, but it's a reasonable one. What does sage- >> devel >> think? >> William >> >>> >> >> > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
