Java Applet won't work via browsers

[Graham]

I have written a Java Applet using JDK 1.2.2 It compiles cleanly with no
deprecated methods or anything. I created an html file to run the applet
and when I run this using the appletviewer in JDK 1.2.2, and it works perfectly.
However, the same html, when veiwed through either IE5 or Netscape (Communicator
4.6) shows the applet box, and indicates 'Applet Started' in the status bar,
but the applet doesn't appear to run (or if it is running, I can't see it).
I have tried running the sample html files that come with JDK 1.2.2 the
same way, and they all work fine, so I know my browsers are set up to run
Java - where am I going wrong? Has anyone had similar problems?

Any help, advice, or even sympathy, would be gratefully received!

Graham.

[Rajkamal Gopinath]

Hi,

The problem is IE or Netscape does not support JDK1.2.2 directly, if you
wish to run programs targetted for JDK1.2 you need a JDK1.2 plugins

Even when JDK1.2 Plug-In is installed, the Applet tag won't work with JDK1.2,
you need to use OBJECT Tag..

There is tool call HTMLConverter which can automatically convert your APPLET
TAG with the OBJECT TAG if you specify the HTML file

Download the JDK1.2 Plugin and HTML Converter from SUN Downloads

Hope this helps.

Regards

Rajkamal



"Graham" <Graham.Smith@Pfizer.com> wrote:
>
>I have written a Java Applet using JDK 1.2.2 It compiles cleanly with no
>deprecated methods or anything. I created an html file to run the applet
>and when I run this using the appletviewer in JDK 1.2.2, and it works perfectly.
> However, the same html, when veiwed through either IE5 or Netscape (Communicator
>4.6) shows the applet box, and indicates 'Applet Started' in the status
bar,
>but the applet doesn't appear to run (or if it is running, I can't see it).
> I have tried running the sample html files that come with JDK 1.2.2 the
>same way, and they all work fine, so I know my browsers are set up to run
>Java - where am I going wrong? Has anyone had similar problems?
>
>Any help, advice, or even sympathy, would be gratefully received!
>
>Graham.