Slashdot Mirror
Open Source AJAX Webmail
scrasher writes "It seems AJAX webmail is all the craze. Right on the heels of both Microsoft and Yahoo launching beta versions of their new AJAX webmail clients, an Open Source startup RoundCube has released an alpha of a GPLed AJAX webmail client. While there are still many features missing (like search!), the demo they have is completely cross-browser compliant and overall very impressive."
For anyone who wants this fix, I made a q&d change to the folder listing code so that it truncates long folder names in the middle so that they don't run over and screw up your display. I submitted this patch to the author a month ago, but it hasn't made it into the trunk yet I guess.
http://suso.suso.org/programs/roundcube/
Roundcube is pretty neat, but it still has some bugs. The IMAP client caches everything so that it is faster on subsequent tries, but on large mailboxes it can be a real pain the first time. It makes for a good program to hack on though. Its just what I've been looking for to replace squirrelmail on suso.org.
Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
When you stay "startup," it makes people think they're trying to start a business around this. They're not, at least not from what I read. It's just one guy's project on sourceforge.
The big question is: Does it run on Lynx and Links?
A new record?
Free, open-source AJAX webmail--it seems we've discovered the secret formula to get slashdotters to read articles!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Unfortunatly, I can not try the demo because the mac specific Mozilla browser - Camino- is not supported. I may be able to spoof my browser and access the mail client without any problems but isnt that what we are trying to get away from?
When I tried to compose a message the "subject" field was obscured by the remains of the "to" auto-complete window. And when I pressed "delete" I was taken back to the Inbox. Eh?
Still, it looks quite nice.
""It seems AJAX webmail is all the craze. Right on the heels of both Microsoft and Yahoo launching beta versions of their new AJAX webmail clients, an Open Source startup RoundCube has released an alpha of a GPLed AJAX webmail client."
So I guess we have a "solution stack" for the problem of reading E-mail?
" the demo they have is completely cross-browser compliant and overall very impressive."
Could it be otherwise?
Does anyone else find it ironic ? The contact email address is : roundcube@AJAXgmail.comREMOVEAJAX
Asynchronous JavaScript + XML - what would you call it? What am I falling for?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Heh, looks like their demo at http://demo.roundcube.net/ might be a little bogged down by /.
This really looks cool, but is it as extensible as Squirrelmail?
We have found that we can extend Squirrelmail to present a very lite webmail presence, yet keep the functionality simple so that basic features will still work in a syncronized fashion with a heavy remote client (IMAPS).
Roundcube still needs some kind of anti-spam integration and automated signup routines, but we will certainly keep an eye on it.
Slashmail.org "The Open Source Email Company"
I liked "ACME" more.. but they wouldn't use it...
No one is "falling" for anything. It's a name that works for a useful technology.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
If you want to be more specific --Adaptive Path, specifically by Jesse James Garrett:
r chives/000385.php
http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/a
(it's not worth linking to, and giving them hits for it, though)
And I agree -- the term right up there with 'blog' as terms that need to go. (the only good thing about the term 'blog' is that it's close to 'bog', which seems to suggest the contents of them)
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Adaptive Path, I believe. Agreed, it's not a bad name, but it still needs a link... (this article is of the usual unhelpful Slashdot variety)
AJAX Security
http://roundcube.net/images/screens/mail_compose.j pg
communik8r beat yahoo, hotmail and roundcube with the idea. Sadly it looks like it has stalled. It shows a lot of promise when I played with it, but it was way too unstable for production.
...but am I the only one who still prefers pine?
I just installed it, and it seems pretty slick thus far. I think they still have a few things to add beyond search, namely:
- Server-side sorting so that all messages don't need to be downloaded in order to view, say, the 15 newest.
- Special folder support, such as Junk, Sent, Trash, etc. Currently send mail just goes off into the ether.
Other than that, I'm pretty impressed. I personally currently use Squirrelmail for my webmail needs, but it feels a bit clunky. If they can meet Squirrelmail's features (at a minimum) I can see this being used all over the place. I find the use of a DB for things like user/session/whatever management to be a bit odd, but at least actual files don't have to be used then.
Only the sound isn't that annoying *ding*, it's the sound of their server catching fire.
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
I read it as asynchronous (JavaScript + XML) rather than (asynchronous JavaScript) + XML. Oh well, whether you call it AJAX or JAAX or whatever - "That which we call a rose by any other word would smell as sweet" etc.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Went ahead and tried it out, it's not bad looking at all. Has a way to go to replace some of the other webmail clients I've used (currently using squirrelmail on my server. Nice, simple, straightforward) but the install was quick and easy and it does look pretty. Might could use a howto on the mysql part for newbs, but I didn't have any trouble and I'm still pretty new to mysql myself. Does seem a bit slow on low-bandwidth servers like mine, but might be my fault.
Definitely keeping an eye on this, though. I'd not mind a friendlier webmail interface.
Yegads, though. "Adaptive Path" is even worse than AJAX. First of all, it sounds kind of agent-y -- as if there were a piece of software which adapted it's behavior to maintain some kind of equillibrium state, like a software thermostat.
Of course, if I were naming the technology, I'd have called it "DOM Twiddling". That way I wouldn't be shy of chucking XML for something better like ASN.1. "AJAX", for an acronym that really represents a kind of architectural style, is unnecessarily specific on irrelevant implementation details. And DT is a nice acronym don't you think? As in, "Our CEO had DT long before our client software ever did."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Ajax is the first genuinely new thing I can think of this century.
<inigo-montoya>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</inigo-montoya>
I use pine + screen for 99% of my email needs. Works great! Long lasting taste satisfaction. (And I have squirrelmail installed for the rare occasion that [a] I'm on a computer that doesn't have ssh, or [b] I want to view an attachment.)
Dlugar
Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
My God, it's like sex with MacOSX but through the power of AJAX, it's better!
Whats commonly confused in the community, if there is no client-side xsl transformations using the browser, their is still interface load. This is not a true AJAX imap client, it is an AJA, and the xml is rendered server-side to xhtml standards.
If you are interested in a pure implementation that has been around longer thats true ajax, check out http://www.communik8r.org/
I call it "Javascript", because that's what it is - there's no need to make up new words. Especially when almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.
Anyone got a somewhat comprehensive list of AJAX Webmail packages? Doesnt have to be only OSS.
For a while now I've been using the web server interface on eMule, which is designed very nicely and really adds functionality.
And what would your rather we call it?
0 2/23/1859222
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?
And what magical consulting company is this?
Adaptive Path, and here's the original Slashdot article where they started the whole thing:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/
It's a name that works for a useful technology.
It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
Oh, I see (sorry)... still, using the word asynchronous is prone to this kind of ambiguity when you don't even say what it's not synchronous with (the original page requested, I suppose).
Still, JavaScript is not a necessary part (and ignores the origins in Outlook), and the article doesn't even use XML! Definitely confuses the architecture and (one) implementation...
How about 'self-updating web content and scripting'?
Or better still: _S_elf-_U_pdating _C_ontent and _K_iller _S_cripting
SUCKS! (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165166&pid=13 781696)
Lets not get carried away here.
AJAX is okay for some limited applications like webmail, but it is no replacement for a nicely written interactive GUI APPLICATION.
At my work, we have slaved away for a year to develop an insipid data-entry application. The chosen technogy? J2ee w/struts. It was a colossal pain in the considering that this was strictly an in-house-under-one-roof app. Now, some of the "architects" are already talking about AJAX for our subsequent in-house bloated data-entry web apps.
Everything I've see about AJAX so far indicates that it is a brutally annoying way to put together an app. Sadly, the hype-pushers show no sign of relenting.
When are we going to move on from this web-browser as application platform bullshit and work with more interesting things like, for example, java web-start and other ways to maintain a rich thick client?
Ultra-light hand held clients.
Like a lot of other people, I do use my Palm to surf the web.
Some browser for Palm don't have all the bells and whistle like full Javascript etc.
For some application, like E-Mails, there's (thankfully) still alternate ways to use content that are handheld friendly : E-Mail POP/IMAP software.
But there other application that are only accessible from the website, like train timetables. And if the website is "Best viewed with Explorer, Optimized for 1024x768", or only tested against mainstrem browsers (FireFox, Safari, IE), you're out-of-luck when you need to quickly check when you next train arrives. (I have luck, our nationnal train company has a light-browser friendly website).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
It doesn't have to be; Ruby's integration of AJAX features is actually quite painless, and can add some real functionality.
I'd love to use roundcube, however, without LDAP support I'm fubared. Like hell am I going to recreate 2000 user accounts with no syncing of passwords!
Why just webmail? There are several open source web applications with ajaxified interfaces. Feed readers, calendars, you name it. Gregarius is exactly like roundcube and simply does to your feeds/news what roundcube does for email.
almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.
Hang on - isn't the use of XMLHttpRequest the defining thing? Which would imply the use of XML it would seem. So if it didn't use XML for anything, then it would be an abuse of the term AJAX rather than a fault with the acronym itself IMVHO.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
another thing it's missing is alt tags. it has a bunch of pretty buttons at the bottom of the screen, but i have no idea what any of them do. i'm guessing one of them is the logout button (as i can't seem to find one) but i have no idea.
It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
What's retarded is that people spend inordinate amounts of time biatching about the name of a technology. I'm sorry you had to learn to use a new word. If the new name gains most of the mindshare, doesn't that mean the new name is better?
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
You can call it whatever you like (you can call it Fungrifoo, if you like, in your notes to yourself) -- but whatever name dominates mindshare is the one I'll use when communicating with others about it.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Depends who you target with your Web site. I am in the biotech field and there are lots of companies and not too few large University hospitals having ultra-paranoically configured firewalls and Web proxies that just strip your nice javascript code from the Web request. So if you target a population like that you have to have a reasonable fallback or it means using and pissing off lots of visitors/customers etc.
I call it "Javascript", because that's what it is - there's no need to make up new words. Especially when almost nothing that's called "AJAX" actually uses XML for anything.
Who is calling something AJAX when it isn't using Asynchronous Javascript and XML? AJAX refers to apps that use XMLHttpRequest to asynchronously communicate with the server to avoid page reloads (e.g. webmail addressbook lookup while typing in To: field). If someone is calling something AJAX just because it uses fancy Javascript, that is definitely wrong, but I don't see much of that. AJAX is not just "Javascript" because it is Javascript + server-side handling of XMLHttpRequest calls.
Sure. I'm not actually commenting on AJAX. I do believe it has its time and place, not that it is a universal solution. I was just pointing out that the parent poster was being asinine.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
From the Demo:
Too many users!
Please check back later!
I love how simple it is to navigate! The features leave something to be desired though. Hey check me out, I just wrote a CNet review!
I ask for a car and I get a computer. How's about that for being born under a bad
How about "Javascript", since that's all it is?
It's technology that already had a name and doesn't need a new one.
And why not call P2P FTP cause thats what it is...
And IM is just email...
And cars are really just horseless carriages...
Now speakin of horses, get off the high one you are on and move on.
If you don't like ajax go ahead and call it Javascript XMLHttpRequest objects or whatever floats your large water displacing transportation vessel (Boat for those that can stand short easy to use references to new techology!).
We all know that you've been using it since dipers were nothing more that squares of cloth and only men were allowed to use computers, and you can continue living life knowing you are superior to the rest of us that call it Ajax.
Now now... don't cry.. heres a Kleenex... I mean facial tissue too dry your eyes.
Excellent work, I will definately try out this mail client on my web site!
Stephen
> Does GMail use AJAX ?
Yes
> Does GMail use AJAX ?
No
- sigs are for wimps.
Well, seeing as how Microsoft invented ("innovated"?) XMLHttpRequest specifically for Outlook Web Access, I'd have to say it should be first on your list.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
the article doesn't even use XML
I definitely agree that AJAX is a misnomer if XML is not used anywhere. But where did you read that? I've had trouble investigating this (I can't download the source because I'm at work).
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Well, I wanted to use Sychronized Exchange of XML, but SEX was already taken.
`fortune -o`
Is it just me or does the 2.355 line rcube_webmail() function bother anyone else?
i l/roundcubemail/program/js/app.js?rev=1.4&view=aut o
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/roundcubema
You don't think enough... therefore you better not be!
"Well, I wanted to use Sychronized Exchange of XML, but SEX was already taken."
Not by this crowd.
Gmail has everyone beaten with its conversation grouping feature.
If the demo site is currently overloaded, has it changed significantly from the way it was a month or so ago (when I first saw it posted in a /. comments thread)?
Kerio MailServer is a nice Exchange replacement that runs on Linux and Mac OS X. It has a really nice AJAX webmail app that is a feasible replacement for a desktop app. It's not free, but it is cheap, and it's not Exchange :-)
Fortunately, it is MySQL-based. Imagine what might have happened to the poor thing if it was SQL-server based instead...
I love the use of AJAX these days. I added an AJAX powered shoutbox to my blog and people are using it like a IM client. The power of reading things real time without reloading is amazing. It's funny watching your Roundcube inbox and just seeing new e-mails pop in place. It makes me feel like I'm using a desktop application. This is where web applications are going these days... Easy to learn, easy to use. Hell.. even my grandma is using it.
Not really. Some authors have explored other ways of submitting asynchronous requests to the server, involving iframes, images, stylesheets or other scripts. Basically, any sub request that does not involve reloading the main page should work.
And then, XMLHttpRequest itself is a kind of a misnomer. It doesn't necessarily involve XML, and there are actually non-XML data languages which are better suited for the purpose. It's actually a mystery why they didn't simply call it HttpRequest, maybe they needed to reach their monthly buzzword quota?
Why not just use gmail. There is enough storage, and they have the money and people to take care of security, cross-platform issues, and bandwidth. Unless you have money like Micro$oft, you won't beat gmail.
A while ago xul-based pages was supposed to be the Next-Big-Thing. What happened to that? Is it being left behind because too few browsers are supporting it?
:-)
How does xul compare to ajax?
(Anyway neither is supported in konqueror so it's not like I care so much
This makes me wonder (quite on the other side of the coin) if Google will ever sell a stipped down version of Gmail for deployment on private systems. I know I would love to secure a gmail-type AJAX mail client. Luckily now it looks like that will happen for free before too long. Still, I think there is a lot of money to be made for Gogle if they sell the software.
Probably when microsoft releases something similar to mozilla's xul Java web start, for all of its apparent usefulness, has a bad name with webheads, which means it will not see adoption anywhere. Technologies like xul are, imo, the end point that ajax will eventually come to. This will probably take years to accomplish, and will also require some kind of solution to the "but it does not work on my wireless/cellular palm/phone/webtv/toaster" issue.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
parsing asn.1 in javascript would be fucking k0re
This software just uses "XML"HttpRequest to download javascripts which it will subsequently run eval() on - no XML involved. It'd be real nice if people would wake up to the fact that AJAX is most often AJA.
-
sig sig sputnik
I've been somewhat looking for a similarly free POP webmail client that is this nice. Is there something like this for POP? I'm a mac guy, so a mac interface is a bonus. My current webmail client blows.
Wow, I used to love playing "ladders" as a kid.
ajax (start)
ajar
alar
alan
plan
pean
peat
pent
rent
rest (end)
9 steps isn't elegant, but works.
This discussion has prompted me to look into other apps... anyone use Citadel? Looks extremely cool.
Gmail clone, I'm not interested. IMO, while Google is still struggling a bit to follow the success of Gmail in other areas(Chat, RSS, etc), there still has not been single web application that has had a more positive effect on my internet activity than Gmail. Gmail was a revelation, and all that I've seen from Yahoo, MS, Zimbra, etc leaves me wanting. It's as if they can't think of a better user experience, and thus their innovation is to bring traditional desktop apps to the web. Boring. And NOT innovative, and possibly not the best solution. I would kill to have an open source version of Gmail. I can use it for my personal/freelance work, and map it to a domain, but my work won't allow me to use it for business due to privacy/security reasons. It's a shame, really.
Well, yeah. It's also a bitch to handle XML with no place to put it but that got fixed too with HTTPXMLRequest.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If Roudcube had an interface to Sieve server-side filtering (that's used by Cyrus IMAPd), I would start using it today.
Without server-side filtering, it's really nasty to subscribe to high-volume mailing lists and use more than one IMAP client. If you use just one client, it's OK, just perform the filtering on the client. But single-client IMAP is like having a fast sportbike but only ride it around your house at 30 mph.
And they also need to fall back to printed paper for people without computers. And spoken word for people who can't read.
Well, it should be able to fall back to spoken word actually. It should be readbale with a screen reader for people who can't see.
Anyone know if this, or any other webmail client, is capable of handling multiple email boxes from different domains or webservers (like a local mail app)?
I guess I'll stick with Mutt.
Long Live Mutt!
I always thought it had one or more activex controls lurking around -- because of its other-browser incompatibility. I'm glad to know that there is more than one way of making my web app utterly incompatible with anything but IE.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
if RoundCube is a startup.. and their product is openSourced, how can they make money?? Same goes for Zimbra..these programmers obviously need moolah to live.
Also, is it possible to run the Zimbra webclient, without the Zimbra web server?
I wouldn't bother basing a security decision on a field whose value is supplied by the client you're not trusting in the first place. ;)
Gabriel Ricard
Wow, you're on crack.
Why do people think that GMail and AJAX are the second coming?
GMail is just webmail with a few UI enhancements.
AJAX is just an old technology that finally received a buzzword.
And why not call P2P FTP cause thats what it is...
And IM is just email...
And cars are really just horseless carriages...
None of those examples are valid. Those are just comparisons of things that are vaguely similar, but really not related at all. Now, explain to me what the difference between Javascript and AJAX is.
Parse error on line 1:
It seems AJAX webmail is all the craze.
_________________________________^
Expected "rage" at col 34
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Why, exactly, do you need a new word for that? It's still just Javascript code. What would be the problem with this Slashdot story being named "Open Source Javascript Webmail"?
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Why make up new words when old ones exist and have the same meaning? There's nothing to be gained, and it only sows confusion and fragments language. And in this case, the word "Ajax" is, on top of it all, a lame marketing attempt.
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
Don't be intentionally daft. You're just insulting everyone's intelligence.
Hang on - isn't the use of XMLHttpRequest the defining thing? Which would imply the use of XML it would seem. So if it didn't use XML for anything, then it would be an abuse of the term AJAX rather than a fault with the acronym itself IMVHO.
XMLHttpRequest is all about the HttpRequest and not really at all about the XML. Microsoft probably envisioned people would use it to load XML with, but there's no requirement that you do that, and most "AJAX" apps don't use XML, but some much more convenient format, such as pure JS code.
"XMLHttpRequest" does not mean "XML". XMLHttpRequest is used much more often for HttpRequests than for XML. Most "AJAX" apps use another, more convenient format, like JS code.
"Why make up new words when old ones exist and have the same meaning? There's nothing to be gained, and it only sows confusion and fragments language. And in this case, the word "Ajax" is, on top of it all, a lame marketing attempt."
/.ers often have trouble with non-literal interpretation (myself included), but really... wasn't it obvious?
Are the two terms absolutely equivalent? If not, then no problem with a new word. Language changes. Or perhaps you should avoid using any word that has a synonym that was in existence before it? Have fun there, the OED is a pretty big book.
"Don't be intentionally daft. You're just insulting everyone's intelligence."
Sarcasm. Pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by doing the same to the opposite position. I know
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Roundcube follows the lousy Outlook-like way of quoting messages when replying to mails. TOFU. This is really, really, really annoying, especially with mailing-lists.
Bells and whistles are fun, but please start with implementing the base of an email client : proper quoting and bottom-posting.
{{.sig}}
Are the two terms absolutely equivalent?
/.ers often have trouble with non-literal interpretation (myself included), but really... wasn't it obvious?
As near as I can tell, yes. And, (if you need an argument from authority here to know I'm not just talking out of my ass) I've written apps that would fall under the term "AJAX", such as this:
http://wakaba.c3.cx/desktop-test/desktop.pl (login/pw is test/test)
Sarcasm. Pointing out how ridiculous your argument is by doing the same to the opposite position. I know
Yes, far too obvious. Which is why I said you were intentionally daft, and didn't just call you an idiot. Sarcasm is no substitute for insight. Please try to think up and present actual arguments in the future.
if you look in screenshot # 5 in the Roundcube screenshots page, the mail attachment in the message being composed is "fuckadies_bunny.jpg"
I dont know how bad I really wanna know...
Why not just use gmail. There is enough storage, and they have the money and people to take care of security, cross-platform issues, and bandwidth. Unless you have money like Micro$oft, you won't beat gmail.
Fuck that.. Why would I want to use GMail, with its false positives on non-spam, when I can have an IMAP solution which allows me to use any front end to access all my e-mail from anywhere? I can use Mozilla Thunderbird, Evolution, Outlook, Squirrelmail, or this not-ready-for-real-use RoundCube an day of the week and switch at any moment, why would I give that up for GMail which doesn't even have IMAP. Sorry, POP3 simply doesn't cut it. Nice try, though.
Then there's the spam filtering. Using SpamBayes, I haven't had a single false positive in the years that I've used it. Compare that to GMail, which not only doesn't have an option to turn off spam filtering, will file away perfectly legit messages to your spam folder.
No thanks.
If I must...
Javascript is a language. AJAX (or whatever the hell you choose to call it) is a method - a way of using javascript, xml, and asynchrous server/client message passing to create dynamic webpages. AJAX is not just Javascript. They can't really be compared at all. It's like trying to say that painting is just a brush or driving is just a car.
Does that highlight the difference for you?
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
"Yes, far too obvious. Which is why I said you were intentionally daft, and didn't just call you an idiot. Sarcasm is no substitute for insight. Please try to think up and present actual arguments in the future."
Dude, it was an actual argument, the argument being that your reason for disliking new names for things is also ridiculous.
Perhaps you think calling someone daft or an idiot construes an argument, since that is how you addressed my point?
Lighten up, take a load off, and unwad your panties.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I know what AJAX "is". Don't tell me they can't be compared, I write these things myself. Hell, a lot of "AJAX" programs don't even use XML at all. That leaves passing messages ansynchronously, and that's hardly unique - that's how most networked programs work. The only thing new is brining this to Javascript. That hardly deserves a whole new name.
Dude, it was an actual argument, the argument being that your reason for disliking new names for things is also ridiculous.
Maybe that's what you thought, but it sure wasn't what you wrote. You wrote a bunch of ironic gibberish. If you want to have an argument, then state your opinion, and don't act like a retard.
Perhaps you think calling someone daft or an idiot construes an argument, since that is how you addressed my point?
You refused to present your point, and I refused to second-guess what you wanted to say.
Reread my first post.
I most definitely made a point, in my very first sentences.
And, BTW, an ad hominem comment is far worse than using sarcasm to illustrate a point...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Reread my first post. I most definitely made a point, in my very first sentences.
OK.
What is wrong with calling it AJAX instead of Javascript?
Nothing. If anything, 'Javascript' has problems, because the word 'script' -- as in script kiddies -- has negative connotations. Add on 'Java' and either your talking about Indonesia, which makes people think of outsourcing (or will, in the next decade), or you're talking about coffee -- and do we really need people associating a useful tech with video game pron mods?
You can call it whatever you like (you can call it Fungrifoo, if you like, in your notes to yourself) -- but whatever name dominates mindshare is the one I'll use when communicating with others about it.
A contentless first sentence, a paragraph of nonsense, which is what I was referring to, and an argument about "dominating mindshare". I must confess to not knowing what this means, but I'm guessing you mean "whatever name everybody else uses". That would be (since I see you like the latin-named fallacies) argumentum ad numerum, "if a lot of people believe it, it must be right!"
And, BTW, an ad hominem comment is far worse than using sarcasm to illustrate a point...
Who's using ad hominems? I've merely told you not to act stupid when you aren't. This is a personal attack now?
GMail falls back to basic HTML.
The Javascript support in OperaMini is way too much limited.
Opera mini like almost every other light web browser that do reformating (with the notable exception of Mozilla) uses a proxy server.
Said reformating takes place on the proxy. The proxy itself implements only very basic Javascript : just enough to get a static page rendered (can support things like redirection, document.prints, or encrypted-source-with-embed-javascript-decrypter)
The browser itself may further provide a couple of other function, but it is usually limited to "alert()" popups. Nothing interesting, and specially not enough functions to get complexe dynamic stuff like AJAX working.
Add also the fact that the browser seldom comunicates directly with the server (the proxy is communicating, but for AJAX to work, the script in the page on the browser must communicate with the server), and is seldom capable of reformatting it self.
Finaly most light application like mobile phone have very limited memory and processor speed, and full standart compliant Javascript is out of question. (Most of ressources are already taken by the Java VM on which the browser is running. And the Java VM it self is usually a light VM and not a full J2EE).
Software designers must realise that they really cannot target "IE-running-on-Windows" anymore.
Even if people running other browsers and other OS are'nt new stuff, it's taking huge proportion as more and more platform get internet enabled : Handheld, wireless mobile phones, handheld game consoles, webtvs, pvrs, home gaming consoles (I did use my DreamCast a lot), public phone booths, cars,
Developpers must start considering standarts and gacefull fallbacks, because it is impossible to test all different solutions. And as these weird browser become more common, people will use them more, because they like to access some information "on-the-go".
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Does it need a new name because you now use the XMLHTTPRequest object?
Does slashdot need a new name now that Zonk turned it into his blog?
Do you need a new name because you changed from boxers to breifs?
Opera Mini is an alternative for people with low-end phones, and for content delivery solutions.
Clever signature text goes here.
Try this in your main.inc.php:
$rcmail_config['sent_mbox'] = 'INBOX.Sent';
My Courier IMAP server wasn't saving the Sent messages with the default setting of 'Sent' but this seems to have done the trick. I'm pretty sure I did nearly the same thing in Squirrelmail with the $sent_folder value in config.php
- Jason
None of those examples are valid. Those are just comparisons of things that are vaguely similar, but really not related at all.
...a lot of "AJAX" programs don't even use XML at all.
Not hardly... IM is simply and advanced email server that knows when you are connected and can tell your friends that you are connected. Its simply email with present capabilities.
P2P takes that present abliity and adds file searching. Its all still message passing and routing. I.E. Email!
Taking existing technology and combining them in unique ways to provide capabilities never before realized very often justify a new name. Like putting an engine in a horse carriage creates and Automoblie.
Now, explain to me what the difference between Javascript and AJAX is.
Ajax relies on javascript, DHTML, css and asynchrous message passing on the server side. By combining these technologies together and placing them all in an easy to use library that is cross-platform and easy to use you get something more than what you started with.
Last time I looked javascript was a clientside scripting language. The ajax libraries that I've been using and looking at combine that with a server side framework that speeds development and easies maintains.
Wow thats the crux of your argument... lets see XMLHTTPRequest object, Document OBject Model, XHTML and the list goes on... XML is behind them all.
That leaves passing messages ansynchronously, and that's hardly unique - that's how most networked programs work.
Why then call it HTTP its really just Gopher, WAIS and a single channel ftp server with some HTML, which itself is just a simplified subset of SGML syntax. And Hell FTP is just a fancy TFTP which is only really UUCP, which is just a bunch of TCP packets ( I can keep going and deconstruct it further to show how its really all a fancy version of kermit, if you'd like!) . I mean really, none of its unique, that's how most networked programs work. .
I write these things myself.
And I think this is the crux right here you've done this years and years ago and now some guy comes along packages it all up in an easy to use library, gives it a name and shows people that its easy to use and maintain. And your version may have done all this but no one knows cause you didn't share it or people didn't understand it. So now to look smart you have to critized the name cause its all you have left of your unique work.
Not hardly... IM is simply and advanced email server that knows when you are connected and can tell your friends that you are connected. Its simply email with present capabilities.
P2P takes that present abliity and adds file searching. Its all still message passing and routing. I.E. Email!
IM isn't implemented over email. P2P isn't implemented over FTP. AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript.
Taking existing technology and combining them in unique ways to provide capabilities never before realized very often justify a new name.
If there *was* something that was combined in new ways you'd have a point, but AJAX is still just Javascript running in a web browser. It's more clever Javascript than we've been used to, but that doesn't make it special.
Ajax relies on javascript, DHTML, css and asynchrous message passing on the server side. By combining these technologies together and placing them all in an easy to use library that is cross-platform and easy to use you get something more than what you started with.
DHTML is Javascript. Asynchronous message passing is Javascript. AJAX doesn't rely on CSS in any way.
Wow thats the crux of your argument... lets see XMLHTTPRequest object, Document OBject Model, XHTML and the list goes on... XML is behind them all.
XMLHttpRequest doesn't necessarily use XML at all. Most AJAX apps don't use its XML capabilities. The DOM doesn't rely on XML - there's a DOM even if you're using HTML 4.0, and many do.
And I think this is the crux right here you've done this years and years ago and now some guy comes along packages it all up in an easy to use library, gives it a name and shows people that its easy to use and maintain.
Except I haven't done this for years. I jumped on the bandwagon along with everyone else when Google made the technique popular.
sigh...
ajax simply is a reference to the fact that messages are passed directly back and forth between the webpage and the server without changing pages. yes, it is dhtml in some light, but simply calling it dhtml does not explicitly reference the fact that xml messages are being passed back and forth. this is what the term ajax is highlighting.
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
IM isn't implemented over email. P2P isn't implemented over FTP. AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript.
...is a technique of creating interactive web sites by using a combination of the static markup language HTML, a client-side scripting language (such as JavaScript), the style definition language Cascading Style Sheets and the Document Object Model.
:-). XML is and extension of HTML, (wait a minute here... eXtendable Markup Langage... holy shit!). DOM doesn't rely on XML, XML relies on DOM. because all xml is as a standard way of constucting files that can be accessed in an OO fashion and yet be extendable with new metadata as the data structure changes. So its impossible to seperate the DOM from XML. You can have a DOM without XML, yes, but you can't have XML without a DOM. And with respect to how AJAX is effecting the DOM its done very much in the XML way even in HTML 4.
By that logic its not a "web browser" its C++, Its not a "Linux Kernel" its C and its not "Your Bank Account" its Cobol!
DHTML is Javascript.
NO! Javascript is a scripting langage. Dynamic HTML is, to quote Wikipedia:
Javascript is just one piece of the puzzle. Notice no where it that definition do you see anything about async server communication. Javascript is providing the glue to mate the other features of DHTML with an object interface provided by the browser to communitcate with the server. This object is not javascript! Its an API exposed to javascript by the browser application.
Now when you provide a serverside framework with which that async object can communicate with and the results of that communication can be used to effect the DOM and CSS of the current web document all the while writing virtually no javascript (ie MonoRail, Ruby on Rails, Ajax.Net...) you have what can be, and is, called AJAX! Its not javascript, its a new way of looking at client/server communtication and user interface design.
And I'll go so far as to predict that within a year you will see browsers that implement ajax functionallity in a way that doesn't require javascript anywhere in the tool chain. And you'll see it because people are looking at the problem from a different perspective than they did in the past. They are looking at it in the AJAX way.
The DOM doesn't rely on XML - there's a DOM even if you're using HTML 4.0, and many do.
Once again you've got your cart before your horse (unless you cart doesn't have a horse... but it think we addressed that
By that logic its not a "web browser" its C++, Its not a "Linux Kernel" its C and its not "Your Bank Account" its Cobol!
:-). XML is and extension of HTML, (wait a minute here... eXtendable Markup Langage... holy shit!). DOM doesn't rely on XML, XML relies on DOM.
Did I say that a webmail application is a "Javascript"? I don't think I did, which would be the equivalent of what you're saying. Or are you claiming that you use an "Ajax" to access your mail?
And I'll go so far as to predict that within a year you will see browsers that implement ajax functionallity in a way that doesn't require javascript anywhere in the tool chain. And you'll see it because people are looking at the problem from a different perspective than they did in the past. They are looking at it in the AJAX way.
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're saying "browsers will add more scripting languages". This is unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it has no bearing on the argument.
Once again you've got your cart before your horse (unless you cart doesn't have a horse... but it think we addressed that
No, just... no. I know this is Slashdot, but please try not to talk authoritively on subjects you have no clue about.
Did I say that a webmail application is a "Javascript"?
...but please try not to talk authoritively on subjects you have no clue about.
No you claimed that AJAX apps, however, ARE implemented in Javascript. and have been attempting to make the case that AJAX is just javascript.
You fail to accept that javascript is just a glue that brings together the XMLHTTPRequest object with the ability to affect the DOM and CSS. All this glued together with an easy to use library and a Server-Side Framework and you have AJAX. Remove the DOM, CSS, XMLHTTPRequest, client side scripting, or the server framework and you no longer have AJAX.
Its NOT JAVASCRIPT! AJAX is what you get when you have all of those together.
This makes no sense whatsoever, unless you're saying "browsers will add more scripting languages".
Take a look at Ruby on Rails, MonoRail or any of the other AJAX enabled frameworks and you'll see almost no javascript on the developers side. These Frameworks use helpers and tags to generate the needed clientside code. The next step is for the browsers to simplify there side of the equation. Think:
<ajax type="button" update="some_css_id">
You could go start coding it up in the Firefox now. Submit it to the W3C and be the guy they talk about instead of Jesse James Garrett.
This is unlikely to happen, and even if it did, it has no bearing on the argument.
I wonder how many times that quote has been stated to the folks that have changed the way we see the world. AJAX is not javascript its a new way of dealing with an old problem. As people look at the problem through the AJAX glasses, they'll see new and better ways of doing it.
Now I've been sarcastic, but I've tried not to be rude. I've enjoyed our little discussion. But please don't insult me. Now lets discuss the subject I've no authority on, Quoting from the W3C DOM Spec:
"The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. The DOM Level 1 specification is separated into two parts: Core and HTML. The Core DOM Level 1 section provides a low-level set of fundamental interfaces that can represent any structured document, as well as defining extended interfaces for representing an XML document."
"The Document Object Model does not define "the true inner semantics" of XML or HTML. The semantics of those languages are defined by W3C Recommendations for these languages. The DOM is a programming model designed to respect these semantics. The DOM does not have any ramifications for the way you write XML and HTML documents; any document that can be written in these languages can be represented in the DOM."
That last line pretty much somes up which of us has no authority to say what was said.
You fail to accept that javascript is just a glue that brings together the XMLHTTPRequest object with the ability to affect the DOM and CSS. All this glued together with an easy to use library and a Server-Side Framework and you have AJAX. Remove the DOM, CSS, XMLHTTPRequest, client side scripting, or the server framework and you no longer have AJAX.
None of the original "AJAX" apps used any easy to use libraries or frameworks. That's all come later, and is obviously not what the term refers to, since it was coined before such things existed. XMLHttpRequest and the DOM are just APIs offered by the browser to Javascript. Using Javascript to "glue them together" is non-sensical, because there's NO OTHER WAY TO USE THEM BUT JAVASCRIPT. And CSS still has nothing to do with any of this.
"The goal of the DOM specification is to define a programmatic interface for XML and HTML. The DOM Level 1 specification is separated into two parts: Core and HTML. The Core DOM Level 1 section provides a low-level set of fundamental interfaces that can represent any structured document, as well as defining extended interfaces for representing an XML document."
"The Document Object Model does not define "the true inner semantics" of XML or HTML. The semantics of those languages are defined by W3C Recommendations for these languages. The DOM is a programming model designed to respect these semantics. The DOM does not have any ramifications for the way you write XML and HTML documents; any document that can be written in these languages can be represented in the DOM."
I don't know why you're providing arguments as to why I'm right, but thanks for doing it. You claimed using the DOM meant using XML. Yet here you have the specs treating HTML and XML as two different languages that can be used with the DOM. So the "XML" part of "AJAX" is still non-sensical.
Well, at least linux certainly is not meant for multi-tasking; I only have 6 virtual terminals, 4 GDM-flexiservers each running KDE with screen flipping enabled and 9 virtual desktops each. That works out to 42 workspaces, and the only window open is slashdot. I guess that makes it zero-tasking, but what ever.