🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard:

That you for all the info!  I checked out the web page and I found it to
be quite helpful.  There was one thing, though, that you mentioned in
your posting that seemed to be a contradiction to other things I've
heard: "everything not shipped with the browser has to be downloaded
each time the applet runs."  I was under the impression that browsers
simply wouldn't run applets that contained swing code without the
javasoft plug-in- but you're saying that they will run it, but have to
download the swing classes each time they do (they'll be smart enough to
download them when they need them, and not to when they don't)?  If you
wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate if you could clarify this for me.  

I found that Netscape 4.5 does come with JDK 1.1.5 (and this is the
browser that my school is now using by default), so perhaps it will
still be possible for me to use swing classes (I'd be very disappointed
if I couldn't- they're really an outstanding addition to the language).

Thanks again for the information!

Kevin

Richard Wilkman wrote:
> 
> Kevin:
> 
> I'd start with:
> http://www.got.net/~rwilkman/java
> 
> Applet Basics gives you a lot of info that will help.  A lot of it has
> to do with the mechanics of applets and what it means to run one from
> a client.  Summary of why you should not use JFC in Applets.
> 
> 1.  Anything that is not shipped with the browser has to be downloaded
> to the client everytime your Applet runs.  No browser ships with JFC
> present, which means you'll add about 1M to the download for each
> invocation of the Applet.
> 
> 2.  It's hard enough forcing your end user to update to 1.1 enabled
> browser.  JFC needs JDK 1.1.5 present and will need newer JDKs as more
> bug fixes go into JFC.  It's very easy to get to the position where
> you've used something in JFC that needs a JDK that your clients won't
> have.
> 
> Use of the Java Plug-in can alleviate some of this for the time being.
> 
> -Rich
> 
> Kevin Ruggiero wrote:
> >
> > I'm afraid I can't help much with your question, but one thing you said
> > did catch my attention ("I've read in several posts that Swing is not
> > for applets").  I'm hoping others on the newsgroup can comment on this
> > statement.  It's of particular interest to me, as I'm new to Java and
> > I'm currently in the middle of designing an applet, and am using Swing
> > to do so.  Is Mr. Brattlund's statement true?  Why or why not?
> >
> > Christer Brattlund wrote:
> > >
> > > Is it possible to use JBuilder 2 without Swing?
> > >
> > > I started working with our current project in JBuilder 1. I saw that there
> > > was a new version of JBuilder (JBuilder 2) and upgraded. Suddenly everything
> > > had changed (no backwardscompatibility there). Swing was introduced to me. I
> > > was using JBCL controls and now those required Swing because I'm working
> > > with an applet and I was forced to use JApplet instead of Applet to make it
> > > work. I had to rearrange a lot. I had to use different controls because of
> > > the Lightweight - heavyweight issues. After making my applet "compatible"
> > > with JBuilder 2 I discovered that the jar-archive became way too big for an
> > > archive (2 MB). I wish there was a way of using JBuilder 2 without Swing.
> > > I've read in several posts that Swing is not for applets. But if I want to
> > > make an applet? What do I do then? Switch back to JBuilder 1? I really
> > > didn't want to do that because that version was even buggier to work with.
> > > So I decided to use the JBCL archives from JBuilder 1. Then I didn't have to
> > > use Swing. Is it really necessary to go through all this trouble to make an
> > > applet with a decent size on the jar-file? Isn't JBuilder 2 for applets?
> > > Just for applications?
> > >
> > > /Christer
> 
> --
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Rich Wilkman
> Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
> Borland JBuilder Team
> 
> If you see something that looks like an opinion up there,
> it's mine and mine alone.
> 
> Mail sent to me from the newsgroups won't bounce but will
> be ignored.  If I have time, I'll respond, but you  have
> a better chance if you confine your posts to the newsgroups
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=