Jon A. Lambert
Jon.A.Lambert at ix.netcom.com
Fri Feb 27 22:05:11 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998
On 27 Feb 98 at 16:51, Ben Greear wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998, Jon A. Lambert wrote:
> > Yep. Big problem. Will they ever? Not if IE supplants Netscape and
> > Sun doesn't cry uncle and remove or revise certain "MS offensive"
> > specifications from the 1.1 JDK. BTW, This is not a diatribe either
> > way, just an observation of the current state.
> > One can get most of the 1.1 JDK to work in most browsers. It's just
> > a real pain in the ass to find out what to stay way from. The
> > only alternative is to maintain different versions. (groan)
> Thats not really true. AFAIK, only netscape 4.04 with the java
> patch and IE 4.01 will run JDK 1.1. I think Netscape 4.0x with a
> patch will kinda run 1.1. Hotjava and stuff will, of course...but
> no one has it..
You are correct. My goof. The 4.x browsers only account for about
20% of the market currently.
> > ActiveX is supported by Netscape and IE so thats 80%+ of your
> > web clients (Lynx be damned!). However, I don't know of any non-MS
> > server-side support for ActiveX. JavaBeans are also easier to code
> > and understand.
> Hmmm, might have been a misunderstanding here. activator is a
> product from sun that will leverages a JRE or JDK (the latest, or
> you're choice) to run applets. It's a plugin, and they supposedly
> work with netscape 3.03+ and IE 3.??+. Last time I tried my applet
> it choked though..although from Solaris it did quite nicely.
I guess so. I'd hadn't heard of Activator. Sounds like it
redirects the execution of the bytecode over to the Sun VM.
Hmmm... Another layer of interface?
--/*\ Jon A. Lambert - TychoMUD Internet:jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com /*\--
--/*\ Mud Server Developer's Page <http://www.netcom.com/~jlsysinc> /*\--
--/*\ "Everything that deceives may be said to enchant" - Plato /*\--
More information about the MUD-Dev