Microsoft to Release AJAX Framework

An anonymous reader writes "News.com is announcing that Microsoft has announced plans to release a JavaScript client framework library for use with ASP.NET 2.0 that makes AJAX style browser clients easier to code. Developers who attend Microsoft's PDC conference in September have been promised an early release of the code."

Comments

client side callbacks?

[drewfuss]

Is Atlas any different from Client-side CallBacks which is a long known feature of asp.net 2.0? I suspect it is not different. If not, it's interesting how Microsoft's marketing department got several news outlets (eWeek, InformationWeek) to report a long known feature as news.

You know this is how it'll start

[aweiland]

With AJAX you have to do a check on how to instantiate an XMLHTTPRequest object. MS implements it via ActiveX (read: really stupid).

I've got money that says their "framework" starts like this:
var req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); ... and doesn't even bother checking of window.XMLHttpRequest is a valid object (i.e. the correct way of doing things).

Of course there's any number MS only javascript methods that'll probably litter this "framework" as well.

Re:You know this is how it'll start

[neil.pearce]

Simple enough to bang in some workarounds with Greasemonkey I reckon?

function ActiveXObject(name) {
if (name == "Microsoft.XMLHTTP") {
if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {
return new window.XMLHttpRequest();
}
}
return undefined;
}

Re:Embrace, extend, destroy ...

[ncmusic]

Except that MS invented the XMLHttpRequest object which makes AJAX possible.

Re:Interesting

[suitepotato]

My sense of doom is tingling. What are the chances of this being taken to the logical idiot extreme and every site being given to fattening everything but doing the fattening on my side? Great, I save bandwidth in downloading, but I eat processor cycles translating and building on my side.

Just wondering what the future of Web Pages That Suck will be like in ten more years with all these "wonderful" systems and frameworks being promulgated all willy nilly without regard to the central focus being conveyance of information and not how to more efficiently clog one part of the system or another.

Re:And let me guess......

[nurb432]

Why wouldnt it? They dont have to be compatible with their competition.

And dont give me the ' they were declared a monopoly ' garbage. They tossed that ruling back in the face of the (US)government and went on about their business like nothing happened..

Re:Embrace, extend, destroy ...

[jhurshman]

Except that you can do pretty much all the AJAX stuff using a hidden frame instead of XmlHttpRequest. In fact, the object that handles such things in my company's framework tries to do XmlHttpRequest first, then falls back on hidden IFRAME if it fails (e.g., if an IE user has ActiveX turned off).

So maybe you should have said "MS invented the XMLHttpRequest object which makes AJAX somewhat more convenient."

Re:Interesting

[kryptx]

Just look at it as distributed computing. The clients do the visual transformation so the server doesn't have to. The effects of this are two-fold:

First, reduced bandwidth. Not for you, though. Nobody (aside from you) cares how much bandwidth you have to use to view a single web page. People care how much bandwidth it takes to serve their own page thousands of times. Minimizing this figure saves money.

Second, server load. Again, thousands (or in some cases hundreds of thousands) of hits tends to put a strain on systems like this. If we offload visual transformations to the client, we save time on our server and our web pages are sent out faster.

Both of these result in reduced costs for website owners. It's what's going to make sure the internet stays as free as it can be.

Kumbaya.

ActiveAjaX

[mfh]

With AJAX you have to do a check on how to instantiate an XMLHTTPRequest object. MS implements it via ActiveX (read: really stupid).

ActiveX by itself is bad. ActiveX with Ajax would be worse because it would enable spyware writers become more agile.

Why is Microsoft helping spyware writers? Surely they would have known this could be a bad combo... right?? /rhetorical

Re:And let me guess......

[masklinn]

Of course it isn't, and I, for one, welcome our brand new multiple-versions websites Browser War.

We all missed having to write 3 times every page we coded, but thanks to the Happy Slashdot Thinker and Microsoft these fine days of craft and worksmanship will soon be back...

Oh, BTW, TCP/IP is mandatory for internet, the Web, on the other hand, is all about HTTP content that's supposed to work the same in every user agent avaible, hence needs interoperability. And it runs on top of internet. Without cross-browsers compliant webpages, you don't have "the web", you have "Corporate 'I have the monopoly so fuck you' Extranet"