Slashdot Mirror


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."

47 of 292 comments (clear)

  1. And let me guess...... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It only really works well with IE...

    1. Re:And let me guess...... by arc.light · · Score: 2, Funny

      If that's the case, I'm sure it will be every bit as successful as Visual J++.

    2. Re:And let me guess...... by TCM · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...and bends over to the next website that wants to run the trojan of the day on your box.

      "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"? Alarm bells are ringing.

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    3. Re:And let me guess...... by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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..

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:And let me guess...... by arc.light · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Or are you saying that MS should support everyone else's browsers? That is kinda like Ford making engines that will bolt straight into a Toyota

      No, it's like making gasoline that can be used by more than one brand of car. Or paving a road that is compatible with more than one brand of tire.

      When products from different vendors need to interoperate, as you find in a networked environment, standards are good.

    5. Re:And let me guess...... by AstroDrabb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Your analogy is pretty far off-base.

      MS doesn't need to "support" other browsers. All MS needs to do is follow standards! Make their AJAX JavaScript standards compliant and no one could complain. If their AJAX is standards compliant JavaScript and it doesn't work with WebBrowser X, then it is the fault of WebBrowser X and not Microsoft's.

      --
      If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
      it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
    6. Re:And let me guess...... by bedroll · · Score: 4, Funny
      And what is wrong with that? IE is the most popular browser by a long way, sure Mozilla/Firefox is making progress but they are still a way off. Or are you saying that MS should support everyone else's browsers? That is kinda like Ford making engines that will bolt straight into a Toyota... not. gonna. happen.

      It's more like Ford making cars that can only drive on special roads, roads that no other car company can make cars that drive on. Then Ford patents certain aspects of those roads. After that, Ford uses incentives to convince various others that they should make those roads the only way to drive to their property, eventually convincing highly desirable property owners to switch to these roads. Then, seeing that these roads are the only way to do business with some clients, corporations are forced to start buying Ford cars for their fleets. Soon, there becomes no viable economic reason to buy any other cars for their fleet but Fords.

      I could go further, but this analogy thing is starting to annoy even me.

    7. Re:And let me guess...... by sean23007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've never used the XmlHttpRequest object, have you? There is one version of it for IE, which is an ActiveX object. There is another for every other browser. Once you get that object, they are almost completely functionally the same. But if Microsoft makes their library only use the ActiveX version, then it simply won't work on anything except IE/Win. And that's not the fault of any other browser.

      By the way, there is no standard yet. XmlHttpRequest is a non-standard technology at the moment.

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    8. Re:And let me guess...... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 4, Funny

      This was a very funny article. My favorite bits:

      A growing number of proponents argue that applications created with AJAX perform better than today's Web browser-based applications.

      Because as we all know, AJAX applications don't run in the browser.

      "People who do (AJAX development) are rocket scientists," Fitzgerald said.

      While I do feel that the intellect of rocket scientists is greatly overrated by the general public, I don't think he was commenting as to the simplicity of AJAX here. Which begs the question, if you think AJAX is complicated, Mr. Fitzgerald, what exactly are you doing in the IT profession? AJAX is about as complicated as a ruler. Perhaps you should stick to playing with brightly colored bits of string and leave the thinking jobs to the "rocket scientists".

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    9. Re:And let me guess...... by grazzy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lets face it;

      90% of the programmers in the MS area are morons. They are not interested in the higher aspects of computer science, nor do they give a shit about compability or efficient code. They care about one thing.

      Does it do what I want?

      This might sound fine and good to a lot of people, unfortunatly it isn't very so. We all remember the MESS frontpage created on the internet, zillions of so called webmasters broke the gates of pearls we had between THEM and US, the programmers. Now they're back, and they're punching with .NET and now this.

      Have anyone here LOOKED at what the Visual .NET platform produces when you use it to create a simple HTML-form? Let me tell you this my friends, its horrid, ugly and terrible. There was a time where I believed that .NET for the 'net perhaps was something MS had done right. Not so, Sir Willian.

    10. Re:And let me guess...... by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Informative

      ASP.NET (in .net 1.1) already doesn't work without javascript more or less.

      ASP.NET can downgrade to both scriptless and cookieless operations, which was one of the major selling points of it. In fact out of the box it presumes too little out of most clients, though thankfully you can update the browsercaps quite easily.

    11. Re:And let me guess...... by masklinn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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"

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    12. Re:And let me guess...... by cybersaga · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They care about one thing. Does it do what I want?
      I agree totally. Most "programmers" forget that you also need to take care of the flip-side: Does it not do what I don't want it to do?

  2. client side callbacks? by drewfuss · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now maybe I'm just entirely on crack here, but didn't Google recently announce or imply that they're going to be releasing their own internal AJAX framework?

    1. Re:Interesting by cuerty · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, what they do is relased it here. It's an XSL-T parser in JavaScript, really cool stuff.

      --
      >Linux is not user-friendly.
      It _is_ user-friendly. It is not ignorant-friendly and idiot-friendly.
    2. Re:Interesting by suitepotato · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    3. Re:Interesting by kryptx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Mods: Do you disagree with me? Go ahead and mod me down. Meta-mods will sort it out. Good luck!
  4. You know this is how it'll start by aweiland · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:You know this is how it'll start by drewfuss · · Score: 3, Informative

      here is what it looks like

    2. Re:You know this is how it'll start by enkafan · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll take that bet. Scott Guthrie (project load on the Web Platform and Tools Team at Microsoft) has stated that Atlas client script will work on all modern browsers, and will not be restricted to any web server.

      You can read more on his weblog.P

    3. Re:You know this is how it'll start by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've not used ASP.NET have you? All of the generated HTML and Javascript is guaranteed to work in all major modern browsers. True, some of the cooler DHTML stuff only works in IE, but other browsers get less cool but still functional equivalents.

      Or, you know, you could just mindlessly bash MS, it's your choice.

    4. Re:You know this is how it'll start by phusikos · · Score: 5, Informative

      While I agree that Microsoft's way leaves much to be desired (primarily because AJAX on IE requires that you leave your browser open to ActiveX insercurities), I'm afraid there isn't really a "correct" way to do it. Your way (testing for the native XMLHttpRequest object, and then falling back to the ActiveX object if necessary) is certainly the best way, however.

      IIRC, Mozilla's XMLHttpRequest object was created to mimic the functionality of Microsoft's ActiveX version, and then Safari and Opera (to a certain extent) followed suit. However, the XMLHttpRequest has never been part of ECMAScript (the standard that Javascript is based on) nor the W3C DOM. It has always been an "extension" that Microsoft has foisted upon the world, much like the <marquee> tags and layers we love to hate.

      As such, it is inconsistently supported -- particularly in Opera and Safari 1.3/2.0. There are also minor differences (e.g. the number of arguments that the send method accepts) that arise due to the lack of a standard specification.

      Fortunately, because of its immense utility in creating modern web-apps, it has become a de-facto standard and thus rather reliable. I would love to eventually see browsers support a standards-based version of AJAX (something like the W3C Level 3 DOM Load and Save specification), but until then, there is no truly "correct" way to do it.

    5. Re:You know this is how it'll start by neil.pearce · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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;
      }

  5. They should call it... by vmcto · · Score: 4, Funny

    HIJAX...

    Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal...

  6. Microsoft death watch by flwombat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a transparent attempt on Microsoft's part to avoid being crushed by the rising juggernaut of web app development that is Ruby On Rails. If RoR has an AJAX framework, then ASP.NET has no choice but to follow in its footsteps in hopes of eking out some meager semblance of survival on David Hansson's waste products.

    Bow, Microsoft, bow before your Ruby masters!

    --
    ---------
    get your war on
  7. Is it a bad thing by suitepotato · · Score: 2, Funny

    that this has the same name as Duckman's idiot son or merely foreshadowing?

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  8. Cross-platform by FTL · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > "People who do (AJAX development) are rocket scientists," Fitzgerald said.

    Pfft. AJAX is easy. It's cross-platform AJAX that's brutally hard. You expect us to trust Microsoft to create a framework that will allow perfect portability between Opera, Safari, Mozilla and MSIE? Uh huh.

    --
    Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
  9. Re:Embrace, extend, destroy ... by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They've had the ability to "innovate" and make their browser into a "rich client" for years. Now that folks like google and amazon have figured how to make DHTML work, Microsoft is playing catch up

    Funny.

    About 5 years ago I was writing extremely rich web applications, using XMLHttpRequest to make client side side-band requests back to the web app, using XML data islands and client side XML document manipulations. Examples include a web timesheet, where the user could manipulate entries (adding new ones, changing them, and deleting them), upon which it would sideband the changes back via XMLHttpRequest, on success changing the client XML document by manipulating it via the DOM, retransforming it with the XML. I created power generation control systems that were entirely atomically updating values (no whole page refresh bullshit).

    Of course all of this required Internet Explorer. None of the competitors had anything marginally similar.

    AJAX, that extroardinarily lame acronym, isn't "new" kids, except that it only relatively recently became a feature that could be used more generally across many browsers. They finally caught up to Microsoft to some degree.

    Oh, and before anyone accuses me of being a Microsoft astroturfer because they're delusional and like revising history, VS.NET 2005 will most likely turn into VS.NET 2006, given Microsoft's extraordinary, embarrassing inability to deliver in recent history.

  10. Re:Embrace, extend, destroy ... by ncmusic · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  11. And the open-source alternative is: by commo1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comet!

  12. Re:Embrace, extend, destroy ... by jhurshman · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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."

    --

    Do not speak unless you can improve on the silence.
  13. Do they have a template? by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Funny
    For press releases, that is.
    Microsoft has announced plans to release [standards-compliant tool] for use with [Microsoft product] that makes [cool-sounding things] easier to code. Developers who attend Microsoft's [upcoming event] in [3-6 months] have been promised an early release of the code.

    Perhaps Slashcode could be enhanced to provide the functionality. That would make this kind of story much easier to put up.

    Hint: the input just needs to be standards-compliant tool. The program should already know which Microsoft product handles the cool-sounding things and be able to choose the upcoming event for the given market segment. The time period should be long enough to allow the code to actually be written, or long enough for the announcement to be forgotten.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  14. Planned for ASP.NET 2.0 for over a year... by SuperJason · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you ever saw the book called "A first look at ASP.NET 2.0", it had some demos of the new technologies that would be in ASP.NET 2.0. Once of them was an AJAX style client-side callback.

    People act like AJAX is some magical new technology, when in reality, it's been used for years. Microsoft is just one of the companies who offered a "framework" to make it easier to develop. If they end up integrating it into their controls, it will be huge.

    And for reference, I believe their demo worked in Firefox as well.

    If anything, the AJAX popularity will just give them a little kick in the ass to move more quickly.

  15. Re:Embrace, extend, destroy ... by bheer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, Amazon has nothing to do with Ajax. Their sites don't even take good advantage of it (except in a limited way, in the 'search inside the book' feature). Google yes (Gmail/Google Suggest), Amazon, no.

    > Microsoft is playing catch up.

    And given that Microsoft created a very rich version of Outlook Web Access as far back as 1998, it's quite revealing that no one 'figured' out how to make DHTML work on a web app used by lots of people until Gmail came out. Actually, the reason for this is of course that Netscape/Mozilla didn't support it until recently-- although I'm sure the /. crowd would rather tear their teeth out than say IE 'innovated' or Microsoft led the way in any way.

    If it helps you get over it, Adam Bosworth, who was on the IE team then and one of the creators of IE4's comprehensive, script-accessible DOM (which made 'DHTML' possible) now works at Google.

    And regarding this toolkit-- it's interesting to see so many people reflexively bash it when Ajax today is a _bad_ mishmash of XML, javascript and HTML. RoR helps but RoR has its own set of problems-- chiefly maturity and applicability to a wide variety of projects. Ballmer got a lot of stick for dancing around shouting 'Developers! Developers! Developers!' but trust me that's how Microsoft earns its living: easy-to-use platforms + easy-to-use development tools.

  16. ActiveAjaX by mfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  17. Before we start bashing Microsoft... by 0kComputer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lets remember that Microsoft created the XMLHTTP objects that AJAX is built on.

    Ok, resume bashing.

    --
    Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
    10.
  18. Re:something old, something MS, by nacturation · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You forgot some notable others:

    * Microsoft Office? no... OpenOffice.org
    * Outlook? no... Thunderbird/Sunbird
    * Windows? no... WINE
    * .NET? no... mono

    Anyhoo, I understand your point about compatibility but Microsoft's goal isn't to be compatible, rather to ensure their own profit.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  19. Didn't see this link yet by prostoalex · · Score: 3, Informative
    More or less official announcement, coming from MSDN Blog. But they've been doing it all along:

    All of the pieces of AJAX - DHTML, JScript, and XMLHTTP - have been available in Internet Explorer for some time, and Outlook Web Access has used these techniques to deliver a great browser experience since 1998. In ASP.NET 2.0, we have also made it easier to write AJAX-style applications for any browser using asynchronous callbacks, and we use them in several of our built-in controls.
  20. Now that's not fair by sczimme · · Score: 2, Funny


    They should call it HIJAX...

    Since it's AJAX the code should be pretty clean.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  21. xmlhttprequest frameworks... by draed · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:xmlhttprequest frameworks... by LibyaHistory · · Score: 2, Informative

      See also this list of Web applications frameworks

  22. I have to laugh by serutan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    AJAX may be the acronym du jour, but these techniques have been around for YEARS, ever since IE5. AJAX is just a simplified way of doing it, just like every programmer in the world creates their own little libraries of routines for handling db connections and the like. AJAX doesn't do anything new, it just repackages it for those who never heard of it.

    When I first learned about XmlHttpRequest in the IE5 days, I thought it was going to revolutionize the web. All the problems of session state maintenance would disappear and web pages would become little client-server apps. MS had this capability first with the ActiveX control. They could have hyped this capability and taken the lead with it back in 1999. ASP.Net would have been another great opportunity to showcase this feature and create standards. Instead the ASP.Net philosophy seemed to be to make as many trips to the server as possible. For a while MS virtually abandoned the idea of out-of-band requests. So now, years after introducing this feature, somebody at Microsoft finally realizes what they had going and decides to jump on the bandwagon. Good job guys, but a little late.

  23. Re:Embrace, extend, destroy ... by sheldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a good point, and it's a wonderful example of why dogmatic restricting yourself to standards is bad for the industry.

    If Microsoft had not done this, and shown the utility of the technology, it is doubtful that Mozilla and others would have the technology now, reducing our choices as developers.

  24. Try JSON instead of XML by dmeranda · · Score: 3, Informative

    One of the great things about "AJAX" is that the "X" is optional. No reason to do XML at all unless that's what you want. So, if XML is overkill for your application, take a look at JSON, http://www.json.org/

    I think it's better than CSV even. And it's got bindings to tons of languages, not just Javascript. So producing the server-side is also very easy.

  25. XMLHttpRequest is not "standard" by _newwave_ · · Score: 2, Informative

    And your knowledge is pretty far off-base.

    Do you realize the XMLHttpRequest Object (the core javascript object in which AJAX would not exist without) is not a W3C standard? It was first implemented in IE5 as an ActiveX Object (new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")) and latered implemented by Mozilla, Firefox, Safari, etc.

    Of course, you won't find anyone giving MS credit for innovation here, but you'll get modded 5 if you're the first to mentions "standards!"

  26. That would be funny by ad0gg · · Score: 2, Informative

    if Microsoft hadn't invented Ajax.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?