×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Better Web Apps With Ajax

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-clean-idea dept.

Programming 184

An anonymous reader wrote to mention an article on IBM's site detailing the fundamentals of Java-based Ajax. From the article: "This article gives you a good understanding of the fundamental principles of Ajax, and a nuts-and-bolts knowledge of the client and server side components that participate in an Ajax interaction. These are the building blocks of a Java-based Ajax Web application. In addition, you will be shown some of the high-level design issues that come with the Ajax approach."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

184 comments

GNAA FROST PIST (0, Troll)

rhoppenrath (807743) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625671)

GNAA pledges aid to Katrina victims
GNAA pledges aid to Katrina victims
Associated Press, September 11 2005

In an early-morning press conference, reclusive GNAA president timecop declared that the Gay Nigger Association of America will contribute to hurricane Katrina disaster relief efforts. He issued a statement describing the efforts being undertaken to rush relief to New Orleans' former residents, many of whom are black, gay, or both. "My heart tears at the sight of so many flooded niggers", timecop said.

The GNAA is contributing a currently-unknown quantity of sperm, intended to prevent starvation and malnutrition. The sperm is to be delivered this Monday to shelters across the nation. "We are having a non-stop wankathon. I believe we can do this, I believe in my niggas. We will not fail to feed NOLA's hungry refugees." Many have reporters present at the conference questioned the nutritional value of the semen being collected, eliciting angry stares and lip-licking from their host. timecop did not directly answer the questions, saying "Who the hell are you? I don't see you vigorously beating off to save the niggers!"

The next item on the list was free wireless internet spanning the Southern Louisiana region, allowing access to GNAA's Lastmeasure [nimp.org] online service. Lastmeasure is provided free of charge. It is widely touted as "better than FEMA" in the charitable relief field. Lastmeasure surpasses FEMA's disaster aid service by being accessible to any graphical browser on any operating system [slashdot.org]. Lastmeasure will be the only website available, as all other http requests will be redirected. This measure is intended to minimize use of GNAA.net wireless for other than disaster-relief LM. The conference ended with an emotional outburst from GNAA president timecop, crying out, "so many dead, rotting black shits".



About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org]?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org]?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com]?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org], a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2005 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

FRISTAGE POSTAGE IS MINE (0, Troll)

Demented_D (795312) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625678)

GNAA Announces Immediate Release of OSX_x86_YHBT
GNAA Announces Immediate Release of OSX_x86_YHBT

Ich Bindawalross (London) - GNAA (NYSE: GNAA [www.gnaa.us]) President timecop released a statement today regarding the immediate Internet release of MacOS X for the x86 architecture, available on many BitTorrent networks. After making the statement, timecop yielded the stage to a second speaker at the press conference, Apple Computer co-Founder and CEO, Steve "Rim" Jobs, now fully recovered from his recent gender reassignment surgery to field questions from attending press members.

"We here at Apple Computerth [sic] have decided on a slightly different path for the upcoming version of the MacOS X," Jobs states before bursting out into high pitched giggles. "We have replaced our overpriced and bloated software with an efficient and easy-to-use interface. I would like to take this opportunity to announce a merger larger than a Zimbabwe nigger cock: GNAA and Apple Computer."

Returning to the podium, timecop began speaking again, while Steve Jobs submitted to orally pleasuring his ten inch nigger cock. "Dedicated faggots have been loyally purchasing the homosexual software and hardware abomination that is Macintosh computers. Apple has been striving to provide software customers with the most flambouyantly homosexual combination available. However, in recent days, this hasn't been enough.

"There has been increasing pressure from the disgustingly obese Lunix nerds and the socially well-adjusted and popular Windows users to convert, as well as pressure from OS X emulators to provide consumers with increasingly gay products. Apple Computer has decided to merge with GNAA in order to broaden the appeal and better serve the interests of all those who buy Macintosh products. Furthermore, we will adopt Apple's "Step 2 ???? PROFIT!" marketing model. This will also stop Apple from going out of business, which they probably would have otherwise."

At this point, timecop paused and deposited a quart of Gaynigger seed into Steve Jobs' mouth.

"GNAApple is committed to our new OS X86. Rather than give the user the difficulty of finding pornography themselves, we provide them with the classic hello.jpg, redundantly archived and brand labeled throughout the 950 MB DVD image, as well as a bundled copy of GPA (Gay Porn Avalanche). Now, greater efficiency in masturbatory pursuits can be provided to all."

"As Slashdot users, many of you might have been exposed to the pirated release, and information pertaining to it. We would like to thank Rob "CmdrCocko" Malda for running the first article, leading to the release of information about our upcoming merger. We would also like to extend our gratitude to thepiratebay.org and XiSO for helping us spread the release over the 'underground scene.' We thank you, the IRC channels who put it on their hacked .edu xdcc bots and fserves who hosted it on your dialup connections.

Steve Jobs, recovering from the large dosage of AIDS from the variety of syphilitic, festering sores of GNAA members, rose to his feet at this point during the press conference. "Our previous versions of OS X were released prematurely, and as a result the operating system was unstable and fragile. Our team of software engineers have also decided to abandon the weak and inefficient UNIX backside in favor of a more efficient and robust alternative: WinNT. The pirated version of our new operating system has had record acclaim from users of the Jewish-based internet news organization known as "Slashdot [kuro5hin.org]".

"Those doubting the superiority of our new release need only read user testimonials."

"The Torrent going around as: Mac OS X Tiger X86 READNFO-XISO It's a complete fake. When the image is booted it shows a picture of a guy showing off his Bu** H**e." - Anon Coward

"if you unrar, burn, and boot like the .nfo file says, it just boots it to a very lovely goatse image. no joke, wasted two hours of my life and made a coaster out of some DVD+R media. HILARIOUS!" - BobVila

"Best. Goatse.cx. Trap. Ever." - saddino

"Aw crap, I thought you guys who said it was fake were just being fags. Opened up the first rar in my hex editor n after scrolling ,I too saw the "GNAAGNAAGNAA" *cries* I want Mac OS for my Pee-Ceeeeeeee." - Mark

"im crying GNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" - hootie

"GNAA > me. Fristage Postage is theirs" - Pat Gunn


About Apple:

Apple Computer is the creator of the Macintosh, popularly known as the "gay computer". 87% of GNAA members are Mac users. Founded in 1974 by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, Apple was nearly out of business in the mid 90's, when Jobs was rehired. He then started the now infamous iGay marketing scheme which involved both the Step 2 ???? Profit model, and a 100% effort towards marketing towards homosexuals.


About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org]?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org]?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com]?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
  • First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it. You can download the movie [idge.net] (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
  • Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post [wikipedia.org] on slashdot.org [slashdot.org], a popular "news for trolls" website.
  • Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server. Follow this link [irc] if you are using an irc client such as mIRC.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

.________________________________________________.
| ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us [mailto]
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.us [mailto]
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

Copyright (c) 2003-2005 Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us]

First (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625685)

omgzor FP yo!

With AJAX, you know you've got (3, Funny)

knightinshiningarmor (653332) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625702)

Cleaner code than the rest!

Re:With AJAX, you know you've got (2, Funny)

mcclure (617150) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625729)

... with your code whiter than white!

hrm - on a white background, that's not goin' to work so well...

Re:With AJAX, you know you've got (5, Funny)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625742)

Here's a screenshot:












I love how minimal the whole thing is (2, Funny)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625790)

almost as though there was nothing there. Except the concept...

By the by, from the IBM site:

> Server load
>
> Implementing an Ajax UI in place of a regular forms-based one may dramatically
> increase the number of requests made to the server.

Will be interesting to see how it responds to a slashdotting...

Two camps (4, Insightful)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625741)

I'm glad to see another serious technical article on the pros and cons of implementing an AJAX solution. Most everyone who says the acronym "AJAX" usually falls into one of two camps - either the "OMFGZ teh AJAX is so amazing! It will change the interweb!" How? Oh, it allows parts of the page to be updated without a refresh. How interesting. Perhaps you could go a little more in-depth? No? Thanks...

The other camp... too many Slashdotters, IMO... feel the need to flex their superior understanding of the fundamental dynamics of the internet and development and offer this gem: "AJAX is just an assortment of pre-existing technologies. Nothing to see here".

The automobile was just an assortment of pre-existing technologies, and it radically changed the world. It also introduced a whole bevy of new challenges, both technical and otherwise, that we still haven't fully figured out yet. It was not a transportation panacea, and AJAX is no cure-all. But just because it doesn't solve every problem doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to be revolutionary.

Re:Two camps (4, Informative)

museumpeace (735109) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625895)

It is not so much the technology as the economic might of the one of the biggest developers of AJAX: Google. They are giving a wall to wall 24x7 demo of AJAX technique and its effectiveness to anyone who pays attention. The fact that middleweight clients that can support a bit of asynchronous update traffic in what , to the user, is the "background", is not so much technically amazing as perceptably practical and a better web experiance. I was looking for better doc on AJAX, having first got the impression it had to be JavaScript [which, frankly, is a crappy tool for designing ambitious software]. This article is a good addition to a topic that doesn't have much presence in the bookstores yet. There are other [mozilla.org] sources [theaimsgroup.com] on line [apple.com]. Its not just for XML and its not just a J language either... Ruby will do. [onlamp.com]

Re:Two camps (1)

GaelTadh (916987) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625903)

If you haven't seen it yet the splunk log analysis engine [splunk.com] is a really neat use of ajax. Theres a live demo up on the site so you can check it out without having to go and install it.

( Fulldisclosure : I do work for splunk but I still think that the gui and engine rock ! )

Third camp sees this? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13626063)

<html>
<head>
<title>Ajax app</title>
<script type="javascript" src="ajax.js">
</head>
<body onload="ajaxInit()">
<noscript>
We are very sorry but we, the developers of this website don't understand the web. We would like to provide a non-script alternative for the visually impaired, disabled and people with security smarts but "Ajax" is the future of the interweb and you are not. If you do happen to be visually impaired, disabled or security conscious then fuck off because we are too busy fapping to the latest buzzword to give a shit about you.
</noscript>
</body>
</html>

Re:Third camp sees this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13626374)

I'll translate for non-luddites:

"Wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah."

And I'm ACing for the luddites with mod points.

Re:Two camps (1)

Jambon (880922) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626259)

Most everyone who says the acronym "AJAX" usually falls into one of two camps...

Well, to be really fair there is a third camp [wikipedia.org]

Re:Two camps (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626304)

How? Oh, it allows parts of the page to be updated without a refresh. How interesting. Perhaps you could go a little more in-depth? No?

Well, one of the things we use AJAX for is to prevent two people from modifying the same story. AJAX hits the server every 10 seconds with a basic "My name is Bob and I'm modifying story 197342". Then if the user's browser crashes or if they just close the window, the story will auto-unlock after 10 seconds.

This doesn't really "change everything!" but it's just one more thing that makes things run smoothly.

Re:Two camps (1)

Osty (16825) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626324)

"AJAX is just an assortment of pre-existing technologies. Nothing to see here
The automobile was just an assortment of pre-existing technologies, and it radically changed the world. It also introduced a whole bevy of new challenges, both technical and otherwise, that we still haven't fully figured out yet. It was not a transportation panacea, and AJAX is no cure-all. But just because it doesn't solve every problem doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to be revolutionary.

The car analogy is close, but you got it wrong. The second camp is not so much saying that this is a bunch of stuff that already existed and is being glued together in new ways. They're saying that the exact same grouping of existing technologies that make up AJAX have existed for years, and that the only thing new is the name.

To fix your automobile analogy, consider that cars existed in one form or another for decades before Henry Ford's Model T (depending on your definition of automobile, you could go all the way back to the 1770s for steam-powered machines, but gasoline-powered ICE-based automobiles have been around since 1886). The Model T is widely credited with bringing the automobile to the masses, but it's absolutely no different than any of the other cars that came before (besides how it was manufactured and that it was more affordable). AJAX is like the Model T, taking an already existing concept and giving it a name and framework to make it more palatable. The people driving cars for decades before the Model T probably felt similarly to those who've been using AJAX long before there was the AJAX name, specifically, "What's the big deal? I've been doing that for years!"

Re:Two camps (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626360)

But just because it doesn't solve every problem doesn't mean it doesn't have the power to be revolutionary.

And it probably is.. But so what? We're developers and we're constantly in the middle of the next revolutionary technology. Christ most of us just want to take a frickin breather and make sure we do it right. The next big thing(tm) is constantly in our ear, ITS HERE! ITS HERE! THE NEW PHONE BOOK IS HERE!

So don't be surprised when we *yawn* while accepting the inevitable new shiny baubble

Atlas (5, Informative)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625746)

Atlas [asp.net] is Microsoft's entry into the suddenly-popular-even-though-it-has-been-around-fo r-7-or-more-years AJAX trend.

Atlas is a set of extensions to ASP.NET 2.0 that allows for web developers to use AJAX with little or no plumbing work on their part.

It integrates with ASP.NET extremely well and maintains the "event driven" style that ASP.NET is known for.

There is also a Channel 9 video [msdn.com] about what Microsoft is doing on the AJAX front elsewhere.

Re:Atlas (2, Informative)

badriram (699489) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625795)

Microsoft entered AJAX when they created XMLHTTP, and used it in OWA. They just created easy to use developer APIs in .Net now. Dont get me wrong, I am liking Atlas, it is a very good framework, and takes care of a lot of plumbing that i know would have taken me years to write.

Re:Atlas (1)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626260)

Yes, you're absolutely correct. That's partially what I was getting at with my very-long-sarcastic-description of AJAX. :)

Re:Atlas (1)

oni (41625) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626363)

Microsoft's entry ... integrates with ASP.NET

uh huh. And there's the problem right there. I know that a lot of people like .net and I'm not trying to start a flame war, but there is a group at the university where I work that does all their development in .net and here's what I see from them:

When they develop something and it doesn't quite work right on any browser that runs on a mac
"oh, well we'll have to tell the users that this app requires IE on windows XP."

When they develop something and it doesn't quite work right in firefox
"oh, well we'll have to tell the users that this app requires IE on windows XP."

When they develop something and it doesn't quite work right in opera
"oh, well we'll have to tell the users that this app requires IE on windows XP."

etc. etc.

Now, I do a little web monkeying myself and I'm quite good in regular asp, macromedia coldfusion, php, and perl. My last big project at work was a class registration system. When a popup help window didn't quite work right on a mac, guess what. I fixed it.

You know why they can't fix their shit? Because it's practically magic to them. They have no idea how it works. How could they possibly fix it? So the end result of .net is basically the same as the end result of active X. It forces users to use IE. Oh sure, microsoft has made some magical control that implements ajax. I don't care. This is the 21st century. It is unacceptable to force people to use IE. It just does not fly with me.

Re:Atlas (1)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626370)

What are you talking about? It is no harder to develop applications that work cross-browser in ASP.NET than any other web development platform.

Perhaps you need to encourage your university to get some new developers, because they're clueless.

Stop blaming Microsoft when you should be firing those developers and getting ones with a clue.

Re:Atlas (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626639)

Developing cross browser apps is no harder in ASP.Net than in any other language. Unless you are doing stuff the microsoft way. Dragging and dropping controls, double clicking, filling in some code, dragging on some more controls. Dragging on a datatable control, creating a viewstate variable that exceeds the size of the rest of the page. The problem is, that with all this dragging and dropping, most of the people doing it have no idea what's going on under the hood, or what to do if something goes wrong. So, if it doesn't render or work properly in browser X, then the developer is pretty much screwed. However, if you have competent developers, who write their own code, to output their own HTML, then they will understand what is actually going on, and will be able to make it work reasonably well with all browsers.

Re:Atlas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13626600)

Microsoft's entry into the suddenly-popular-even-though-it-has-been-around-fo r-7-or-more-years AJAX trend

Holy fuck people. MICROSOFT INVENTED AJAX!!!

AJAX = OLD SCHOOL (0, Troll)

ProVega (916977) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625753)

I have been using "AJAX" for almost 8 years now. Even back with IE4 you could use the XMLHTTP object to make "background" XML requests to the server, process the XML on the client and then modify the UI client side. Old hat. It is nice to see they finally have a name for it. Now maybe Microsoft will get rid of that crappy "server-side click" stuff and integrate this into .NET

Re:AJAX = OLD SCHOOL (0)

sexyrexy (793497) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625782)

Kudos. I created the first e-commerce site in Flash, before most people even knew what Flash was, and no one really gives a shit. Unfortunately, hitting one out of the park in terms of web development requires better PR than technical skills. With AJAX, it's simpy taken this long to become popular. At least we can be thankful that, now that it is popular, we're already ahead of the curve, eh?

Pssha (2, Funny)

DysenteryInTheRanks (902824) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625755)

Ya sorry but everyone knows that to obtain Buzzword Fad Certification (TM) AJAX *must* be coupled with Ruby on Rails, an Agile Development Model and legendary programmer Bill Brasky. Java does not fit in that picture (although apparently Brasky once coded a complete J2EE Web commerce framework in one hand on his BlackBerry while siring a child with his best friend's wife ... that framework launched a little site called Half.com).

When you're using java, you can... (3, Informative)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625762)

...use JSON-RPC instead. XML is longer and hard for a javascript interpreter to interpret. Why does everyone want to use it as a wire protocol? I've never understood this. It makes a lot more sense to me to just store everything as a javascript hash.

Anyway, unlike the almost most ajax libraries, which are at this point almost totally devoid of docs, the guy who wrote a JSON-RPC library actually tells you how to use it. If you've got java, its the way to go, I think. Here it is. [metaparadigm.com]

Personally, I'm a perl monger, so I use this lib [cpan.org], which isn't nearly as good, as you have to do most of the javascript stuff yourself. Faster than XML though, and its still rather trivial to turn a DOM object into a plain javascript one for use with JSON.

Re:When you're using java, you can... (2, Insightful)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625818)

Okay, let me try to understand this. I'm putting together a brand spanking new web application that would greatly benefit from this technology. But to me, simplicity is the cardinal rule. Why do something in 50 steps, translating data from one langugage to another, when you can just keep it in one?

I have over a decade of experience writing programs that spit out HTML. Why not have my Perl scripts spit out garden variety HTML which can then be substituted appropriately on the page?

It seems to me that would be simple, clean and functional. And it might be a simple matter of saying my content type is text/html instead of application/xml.

Why put the burden on JavaScript on the client, when I already know how to do it on the server? In terms of server processor time, it's just as easy to spit out HTML directly than it is to spit out XML and translate it to HTML on the other side.

And if it is easy to do this, I'd appreciate a link to a tutorial.

Many thanks for your time and ideas.

D

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625862)

I think it's more to do with the nature of the response. If you have a browser that is capable of dealing with an XML response (same as an HTML response without the page refresh) then all well and good. If you don't then your response will be ignored.

You could feed vast amounts of HTML over the XML connection. Or you can just feed the relevant data and get the browser to reformat the page. The former is the old style of server-side coding. And sending through all those table and cell tags would be a nightmare in terms of server load. The latter is more elegant - you send what you need and only what you need. The ideal of course being pages that need only the minimum amount of refreshing.

Unless of course I'm missing the point of your post which is entirely possible and for which I apologise in advance.

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625936)

Let's pretend things worked the way I thought.

I would send a request and get a response from the server, as a character string.

I could then do something like

(html)
<span id = "willchange">This will change</span>

<td onclick = "changeit();"> ... </td>

(js)

function changeit()
{ /* send the request from ajax */ /* tell it to call receive_data when it gets something */
} /* Call whenever data is received from the server */
function receive_data(data_from_server)
{ /* make ajax request */
      document.all.willchange.innerHTML = data_from_server;
}

That seems a lot simpler than all this parsing, no? All I need to do is make the request, get the HTML back from the request and substitute it in the right spot. It should be dead easy ... right?

Many thanks.

D

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625984)

so you're tying the page architecture, the web app architecture and potentially the back-end architecture together. And then when you want to feed the same data to a different client (mobile phone, flash, RSS feed, tv, whatever) we have to write a new hook in the API. And when the design changes we have to rebuild the middle-ware.

The point of XML is to allow us to simply send the data and let the client work out what the hell it wants to do with it. Of course it rarely works that way but AFAIK that's what's supposed to happen... or something...

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626091)

Not to mention that the parsing is already done for you by the browser very quickly.
You're just dealing with a newly retrieved Document Object Model that is painless to traverse in javascript.
If bandwith is an issue, use a DTD/schema with small tags :)

Re:When you're using java, you can... (2, Insightful)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626167)

OK I admit I have a vested interest in this. I wrote an API that did exactly this (custom strings) in IE4 & NN4. This is before IE5 came out and before I'd learned to read w3c specs properly. The API sucked more suckily than anything has ever sucked before. It was a multi-car pile-up of an API. I spent months writing this crap and nearly lost my job and those of my project manager and line manager over it. It was the code no-one else would touch, despite extensive documentation. I wrote this... thing, it used invisible frames or invisible iframes (no I didn't know what XML was supposed to do either), it was supposed to implement some sort of windowing system within a browser.

Now picture this. A windowing system, to run in IE4 or Netscape 4 written by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. You want memory leaks? We had 'em. Most of the clients' machines would die after ten minutes running this. You want race conditions? Yup we those had those ose se e as we.
ll
This thing was so asynchronous it would frequently try to write to HTML elements that didn't exist yet... or that did exist but that the browser had decided they'd disappeared. Netscape 4 was the best at this. If a string was too long suddenly the rest of the dom disappeared into recursion hell and you couldn't drill down into the necessary layer.

In the end I had to write JavaBeans to write the HTML which would then modify itself or not as the case may be...

It was not merely a dog. It stank, whatever way you looked at it. Consequently the company never touched a DHTML project again and when they finally decided to upgrade the site they simply wrote a flat HTML version.

I get flashbacks just thinking about it.

But as a result I learnt that using a non-standard, custom server response may reduce project maintainability. And may reduce the likelihood of you keeping your job.

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626294)

What I'm really trying to do is keep as much on the server as possible and minimize the use of JavaScript, which in my experience is a hideous swamp of incompatibilities. My mantra is to put as little on the client side as humanly possible.

Among other things, this makes the mobile phone version easy. Instead of having AJAX refresh a table cell, I'll have it go to the server and pull the exact same HTML code I would have had in the cell.

That sounds a lot easier to me than building two systems, one of which uses XML to talk to a "rich client" and the other which uses straight HTML for mobile phones.

D

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626423)

too slow. If you have a few thousand customers online concurrently, latencies for generating then feeding that amount of data on a regular (on average every second) basis are horrific. Forex & betting apps are impossible on that basis. Any bandwidth / latency sensitive application is out of the window.

I used to do it the way you are suggesting. Not many clients took it up, not many were interested. A LOT of people are interested in AJAX which suggests that there may be some other advantage to assuming a smarter client.

Plus with the pace of tech advancement, most clients are capable of manipulating a basic DOM.

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626466)

You know, I'm not sure if I've explained my idea very clearly since it's the simplest and least bandwidth intensive method I can think of.

This post:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163110&cid=136 26407
is my latest effort to perhaps be a little clearer.

here's IBM's sample XML:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<cart generated="1123969988414" total="$171.95">
    <item code="hat001">
        <name>Hat</name>
        <quantity>2</quantity>
    </item>
    <item code="cha001">
        <name>Chair</name>
        <quantity>1</quantity>
    </item>
    <item code="dog001">
        <name>Dog</name>
        <quantity>1</quantity>
    </item>
</cart>

Here's the HTML I would send back to the browser from my server side code:

2 Hat, 1 Chair, 1 Dog

That's many fewer characters than the XML.

Now, it's true that if I loaded the entire catalogue into my browser, then it would be faster to put in an xml version of everything and be totally responsive once the catalogue was loaded. But then I wouldn't have to communicate with the server except for the final confirmation of the transaction. Unfortunately that kind of thing would be so slow to load (assuming a reasonably big catalogue) and so I doubt customers would prefer it. Also, cross-browser testing would be a throbbing migraine :-(.

Thoughts?

D

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626321)

Converting XML into HTML requires the use of a XSLT document, and some funky browser facilities normally.

Why not do it in straight HTML? Here's a few reasons not to:
1) Repopulating elements you've already got with new data is faster than re-rendering part of the page. That's the whole reason why you're using AJAX at all instead of just using CGI.
2) That can introduce memory leaks.
3) Then you need html generating code on the server side. You can speed up development time if you're not worried about the wire protocol (it's just supposed to work without you fiddling with it - you just put the structures out there and it takes care of the conversion).
4) You're not always generating elements. Sometimes you just want your page to change the way it behaves, and behaviours are generally written in javascript. So getting a new javascript variable is quite useful there.
5) Remember, you need two way communication. Are you going to be using a DOM parser on the server to read the HTML that is spit out by the client? And isn't that even worse than XML as far as efficiency and reliability?

It still seems to me that JSON-RPC is the way to go.

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

daviddennis (10926) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626407)

What I want to do, essentially, is to change HTML within a page to whatever's generated by a server-side script. For example, let's say my application was a shopping cart.

I want to replace the former value of the span called cart containing cart contents with, say, "Cart contents: Foo $53.95, Bar $25.75, Baz $32.95"

So all I want is for my server-side script to output Cart contents: Foo $53.95, Bar $25.75, Baz $32.95 to the client, and have my client take that string and set cart's innerHTML property to it.

I don't see the advantage of telling the server to give me the XML representation of that, sending it to the client, and having the client parse it and eventually come up with a innerHTML property for cart of Cart contents: Foo $53.95, Bar $25.75, Baz $32.95

Because I'm a curious guy who wants to be open-minded, please tell me the advantage of the latter. It strikes me as about ten times more complex, and thus far more likely to run into memory leaks and other icky things than my idea. In addition, it's far more likely to run into compatibility problems on the client side, which are horrible to diagnose in my experience.

Many thanks.

D

Re:When you're using java, you can... (2, Informative)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625826)

on the other hand the article as posted above goes into detail on degradability whereas JSON-RPC is specifically latest versions only. Of course the advantage of latest version use is that your machine is unlikely to be owned by one of the many nefarious sites out there just waiting to infiltrate and destroy you. On the other hand if your IT department is run by any one of the dolts I've seen managing IT departments, you won't have permission to update your browser and they won't bother.

Still - got a version for php? :)

Re:When you're using java, you can... (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626332)

Well, if you're really concerned about it, the techniques used for degredation apply equally well to JSON-RPC.

The real issue is why you'd use one over the other as a wire protocol.

Re:When you're using java, you can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625961)

No - use CGI::Ajax and skip the whole js mess, if that's what you want. You can use CGI::Ajax to call perl functions from js (asynchronously). You can return a js object (e.g. created with JSON perl module) and eval it. CGI::Ajax is documented too.

Re:When you're using java, you can... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13626131)

XML is longer and hard for a javascript interpreter to interpret. Why does everyone want to use it as a wire protocol?

XML might be hard for a Javascript interpreter to interpret, but you don't interpret the XML with Javascript. The XML parsing routines are built into the web browser itself, you just access it with the DOM, same as with all the other Javascript you write.

Yes, that's marginally harder than having i as a native Javascript object, but it has the benefit of being reusable no matter what language you are using. If I also want to manipulate the data with a script, I can write that in any language, using standard XML APIs, not just one that can interpret Javascript.

Given that the difference in effort between the two is so minimal, I prefer to use the more flexible approach.

An "arrr" solution. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625772)

I much prefer a seaside [seaside.st] solution.

--
The "are you a script" word for today is platform.

The problem with AJAX is the X (5, Interesting)

MarkEst1973 (769601) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625791)

JSON [json.org] is a much better mechanism for handling data transmission in AJAX applications.

Why? Less verbose (easier on bandwidth) and no parsing (ever tried parsing XML using XmlHttpRequest? It sucks). JSON is object syntax. It is a real, live object serialized to string.

It just so happens that JSON is also legal Python object notation.

Hmmm... GMail, Google Maps, Google Suggest... none of these use XML. Google is also renowned for using Python. JSON syntax is the same in client-side javascript and server-side python... hmmm... makes me think twice, anyway, instead of drinking the web services kool-aid Sun and Microsoft are serving.

Re:The problem with AJAX is the X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625821)

instead of drinking the web services kool-aid Sun and Microsoft are serving

I don't think you understand the point of web services. Don't worry, you're not alone there at all - seems like most people have absolutely no idea what they're for.

Interesting... (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625969)

I do some parsing. But instead of XML, I use the HTTP-headers format.

My-var1: Something
My-var2: (Something_base64_encoded)

Has been pretty useful for me.

Re:The problem with AJAX is the X (3, Insightful)

spid (41738) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625974)

Not so. In both IE and Mozilla XML parsing is done in native code, and is pretty darn fast. Granted, accessing the nodes in that resultant document can be tedious from a development standpoint, but if it's performance you care about, then XML will most certainly be faster. While JSON may be more terse, and easier to deal with as a developer, the browser still ends up having to create a lot of objects in interpreted code, which is a lot slower.

Re:The problem with AJAX is the X (2, Interesting)

The Bungi (221687) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626026)

For that matter you could use something like YAML [yaml.org] and get over your problem with the "koolaid". If web services are useless from your POV that's fine, but some of us use XML for stuff other than doing OOB requests in JavaScript.

You can move anything over HTTP, and as long as the receiving end understands you, you'll be OK. You can move INI files if you want. But some people prefer to use existing infrastructure (stable/tested parsers, WS-*, schema validation and so on) so as to avoid reinventing the wheel. Reinventing the wheel is expensive. So you take a small hit on the badwidth. Most people are not Google so they don't have to worry about measuring transport bandwidth overhead in terabytes and spending a year doing characterization testing.

Re:The problem with AJAX is the X (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626389)

JSON is object syntax. It is a real, live object serialized to string.

So it is a proxy, and when I call a method on the object, the behaviour occurs on the server side? I find that pretty hard to believe (or a very bad idea if it is true). Fine grained method calls were pretty much abandoned with the total failure of early EJB applications to scale gracefully (a lesson which had already been learned by many DCOM and CORBA programmers). I'm guessing that JSON actually uses serialized structs, possibly with identical associated methods on both sides of the wire.

That is to say, a real live object has behavior associated with it, and state which is intrinsically linked to the environment in which the object resides. Early EJB apps extended that environment across the wire, with every method call traversing the network. It is extraordinarily hungry for bandwidth and completely unworkable on today's Internet (though it can work quite nicely in the lab or on purpose-built networks).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying serialized structs are a bad thing. I love 'em, and use them every day. But objects they are not.

DIGG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625796)

I don't know if anyone has noticed, but digg.com seems to be much better with the stories than slashdot. I saw this on there a day or two ago. No dupes either!

Java? (0, Offtopic)

MrArmyAnt (847547) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625815)

So what happens when a java applet is inside a java browser? Java in Java? That can't be efficient.

Re:Java? (1)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626034)

I don't know of any java browsers off hand - most browsers are written in C/C++. Certainly those that will support a JVM will be as the JRE will be in C to allow it to run at a half decent speed. But theoretically, if you were running a browser, written in java, with a JVM, written in java, and you had an XML Socket open you'd be using Java rather than Javascript so you wouldn't be using AJAX anyway.

Of course AJAX may allow some sites that insist on using Applets a method to reduce their dependency on client-side java.

Re:Java? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13626076)

wtf are you talking about? AJAX uses Javascript, which is not Java.

Ajax with lots of languages (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625819)

revolutionary or not, "AJAX" is now used in lots of languages. and there are some good tools out there. there's ruby on rails [rubyonrails.org] with the prototype library which is also now available in perl. there's also CGI::Ajax [cpan.org] which is pretty simple to apply... and it's perl!

XML is bloated (-1)

SumDog (466607) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625879)

I like the concept of doing more on the client side, making web applications actually feel like applications instead of static pages that have to refresh everytime you change a combo box.

However, from the comments I've read, AJAX seems like a bad solution. First off, I HATE XML. It's overly verbose and wastes tons of bandwidth. People say its human readable, but have you ever tried to open an abiword document in a text editor? Human readable?

You know what's human readable? LDIF. It's the stanrd format for importing and exporting information from an X.500 directory (LDAP, Novel Directory, etc). It's human readable, the dn gives you a location where the information fits into the tree and it eats up a lot less space than XML (although there is a lot of repeated data and wasted space still)

XML does have advantages over properity text and binary protocols in being standaridzed with DTDs/schema, however it still feels like bloat. You ever look at a raw SOAP request? It's not pretty. It's actually quite distrubting.

Still, overcomming the logistic of javascript implementations on multiple browsers is quit a task and there are many engines and concepts, AJAX being only one of them, that seem to do a good job of takling the issue. As far as XML based protocols, I try to avoid them at all cost.

Sumdog

XML is bloated-Carry a small package. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13625943)

"First off, I HATE XML. It's overly verbose and wastes tons of bandwidth."

Shhhh! Don't anyone tell him about server-side compression/ Client-side decompression. He hates XML so much. You'd be wasting your breath.

Re:XML is bloated (1)

uptoeleven (845032) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625953)

Sure XML is bloated but the kind of XML a developer will want to come back to a web page is unlikely to be. What would it contain?

Well obviously the data to go on the page. In addition to that, probably some meta-data to tell the browser where to put that data on the page. And that's it.

The data coming back from the server is unlikely to be any more bloated than what would have been sent in a standard HTTP response, possibly less bloated - after all if you already have a page hierarchy set up there's no need to send another one down the tube.

My gut feeling is that people will read these pages and decide whether or not AJAX is a "good thing" or not from what they read here, rather than RTFA. I'm not advocating censorship but I do think given the choice of forcing javascript developers to write an LDIF parser or getting them to use the built-in XML parsing capabilities, XML would win out for sheer convenience. Though watching them try to write an LDIF parser would be amusing...

Re:XML is bloated (1)

museumpeace (735109) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625998)

While I would like to agree with you, and in terms of information density, XML is pretty fluffy if you go in for descriptive entity tags and all.....its more complicated than information density.
I have written a few XML parsers and developed around Xerces and IBM xml/dom libraries and even written a parser generator code. What I eventually realized was that though the wires had to carry fatter messages, I had to write less code. Why? Regularity of the brutally simple grammar at the heart of XML and the hand-in-glove fit of nested structure and recursive languages means you can be very effective a developing and reusing XML handling objects. You won't notice this on your first project, maybe your second and for sure by the third one. Humans don't have to read the darn XML, programmers do. And we all know into which of those two species the preponderance of bill payers fall.

Re:XML is bloated (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626097)

If you don't like the XML in Ajax, try JSON [crockford.com] (JavaScript Object Notation). With JSON you can implement Ajax without all the XML bloat. Ajax is more about the Asynchronous than it is about the XML. So Ajax without the XML and with JSON is... AJAJ?

Re:XML is bloated (4, Informative)

KagatoLNX (141673) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626265)

First, Unicode under JSON is abit exciting. In XML there are no surprises.

Secondly, XML is transported over HTTP 90% of the time.

Almost all modern HTTP implementations implement GZIP as an encoding. If you don't already have this enabled in your servers, then you don't really care about bandwidth utilization.

JSON offers nothing useful over XML+GZIP (which is a transport/encoding issue anyway). It can, however, make it vastly more difficult to interchange your data and tie you to a limited object model. If anything, I support the process used by the W3C. I like their standards. JSON is nice, but not nice enough. Sorry guys.

Learn XML. Learn XPATH. Try to use Twisted's XMLSTREAM implementation for a taste of how easy and flexible it can be. Write some Jabber apps. JSON can't really be in those spaces. Not anytime soon at least.

Re:XML is bloated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13626430)

You stupid asshole, if you hate xml then do this:

<stuff>whatever_data_you_want_here</stuff>

You really think that is going to take a long time to parse? You fucking idiot, you are too damned stupid to be a developer if you couldn't think your way out of that wet paper bag. I'm sick of you dumb shits pissing on every idea.

Better Java Apps with AJAX? (2, Interesting)

tjasond (680156) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625924)

Why not just use Echo2 [nextapp.com] and not have to worry about the details of an AJAX implementation for Java? I generally prefer not to reinvent the wheel, and with all of the various browser quirks with respect to AJAX, that's quite a non-trivial wheel to try and recreate.

Java != JavaScript (1)

nulbit (869982) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625950)

AJAX refers to JavaScript technology. Really, I'd expect better from IBM, JavaScript and Java are two totally separate languages.

DWR and JSON (0, Redundant)

kevin_conaway (585204) | more than 8 years ago | (#13625970)

Does anyone have any real world experience with either DWR [java.net] or JSON [metaparadigm.com]? I'm curious to hear what others think.

Ajax library for Java (3, Interesting)

strokerace (912726) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626022)

There's a pretty good library I've used recently called DWR [getahead.ltd.uk].

If you're looking for a Java library to do some of the heavy lifting, check it out.

Not reading IBM articles (-1, Troll)

Rick and Roll (672077) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626044)

I stopped reading IBM articles a while ago. The forced registration is very annoying. Another reason is that the articles are often pointless.

Re:Not reading IBM articles (1)

yem (170316) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626264)

Maybe you should try again? There is no forced reg (I don't recall every seeing one in fact) and the content is very good IMO.

Some preliminary exposure to AJAX (0)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626079)

Well, as coincidence has it I'm currently using an AJAX style approach to implement new UI functionality for one of our corporate apps. The JavaScript can get a bit hairy at times but I expect there to be a growing library of taglibs, APIs, etc Besides the obvious UI experience (think gmail) I really like how AJAX has the potential to improve the quality of server side code. Servlets can now delivery small incremental parts of a page and the whole game becomes a lot more modular. Almost starts feeling like Swing development - well, maybe not really - LOL. I'd like to see improved support for event handling though - instead of passing the servlet/jsp name I'd like to be able to refer to a resource struts style and make my request that way. So, a particular JavaScript event handler would refer to a serve side resource by name. Yes, I'm doing this on my own right now but this should be a LOT easier a few months down the line.

Anyway, yes I know this stuff has been around for years, but it's always been a bit hairy to implement and there were NO standards (kind of where ORM was before Hibernate and iBatis, etc.). This really could be more than a new 'fad' and allow developers to rapidly build dynamic apps based on common standards (think supportable, appliable, and extendable).

Spellchecker? We do not need no stinkin' spellchecker!!!

AJAX can be fun! (3, Interesting)

Klowner (145731) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626092)

I made a little window-manager-esque thing in Javascript/CSS/HTML a few weeks ago (Looks messed up in IE, works fine in Firefox)

http://dugnet.com/klown/ajwm/ [dugnet.com], all that's needed are some AJAX functions to swap out the contents of each window, instant freakish web-app thing..

Can't Colgate sue "someone" for using the AJAX (2, Informative)

myfootsmells (905742) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626132)

brand name?

Re:Can't Colgate sue "someone" for using the AJAX (2, Insightful)

pbhj (607776) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626483)

No.

You're thinking, no doubt (?), of trademark law. Trademarks are technology specific. So unless "someone" is creating a cleaning solution and "passing off" that product as Colgates (?) Ajax ...

Colgate could still sue. But they shouldn't win!

Remarkable omission (2, Informative)

UhhhClem (852495) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626210)

Here we have a detailed, in-depth article about client-side browser XML processing that doesn't once mention XSLT. If you're writing JavaScript to transform your XML responses into updated client-side HTML by manipulating your browser's DOM, you probably should be listening to those who are recommending nonstandard-but-terse formats for data interchange.

And while we're on the subject of terseness: complaints about "bloated" XML are meaningless outside of a context that takes the application's overall bandwidth requirements into account. Is an XML document bigger than a binary data stream? Sure. Is this significant? Depends on your application.

Re:Remarkable omission (2, Interesting)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626382)

complaints about "bloated" XML are meaningless outside of a context that takes the application's overall bandwidth requirements into account

Totally untrue!
There's also the issue of latency and local computation time. The less time between the click of a button, and the reciept of data, the better it is.

The lower bound is very, very low, and every little bit helps.

Re:Remarkable omission (1)

UhhhClem (852495) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626620)

The lower bound is very low, true. The distance between that lower bound and what's perceivable by a user, however, is generally substantial. Of course it depends on the application. There are certainly some applications where engineering the data stream to minimize client-side parsing and transformation time will be perceivable, and where the payoff in responsiveness is worth the development cost of that engineering. The shopping-cart application in this article sure as hell isn't one of them, though.

JWP has a great AjaxTags component (3, Interesting)

fzammett (255288) | more than 8 years ago | (#13626310)

Since everyone else is mentioning their favorite AJAX toolkit, I'll list one too:

http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net/javadocs/index .html [sourceforge.net]

This is a component of the larger Java Web Parts project called AjaxTags. It's a taglib that allows you to easily add AJAX functionality to arbitrary page elements in a purely declarative manner, i.e., *NO* coding on your part (although there is more capability there if you need more). It really makes AJAX a breeze, and is pretty powerful at the same time. If you are a Java web developer, have a look, you may very much like what you see!

P.S., The parent projects' page is here:

http://javawebparts.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...