Why Microsoft and Google are Cleaning Up With AJAX

OSS_ilation writes "Google uses it, and Microsoft is pursuing it, so there's a lot of hype and hubbub surrounding AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML). AJAX brings together some hot properties, JavaScript, HTML/DHTML and HTML, according to Julie Hanna Farris, founder of Scalix, a Linux-based, e-mail systems vendor. Scalix is using AJAX in Scalix Web Access (SWA), a Web-delivered, e-mail application. AJAX enables advanced features like drag 'n drop, dropdown menus and faster performance capabilities, which are now making their way into Web applications, she said. These kinds of capabilities represent a significant leap in the advancement of Web apps."

Comments

Re:What is ?

[imidan]

The .NET alternative, which comes as a part of .NET 2.0/Visual Studio 2005, is Atlas.

Here's an overview.

Re:What my dog hears

[hillg3]

Yes! I found it! What dogs hear

Re:AAX???

[wealthychef]

I think the grandparent was saying that it would be nice to replace the J in AJAX with something else. But I am not sure what they meant and should let them speak for themselves. :-)

Re:Where? ajaxian.com

[dalmaer]

Hi, My name is Dion Almaer, and I run a site called ajaxian.com which focuses on news, resources, and all things Ajax. We also have a podcast called Audible Ajax. Let us know if there is anything that you would like to see covered, and if there is anything cool in the Ajax world that we have missed. Cheers, Dion

Re:Funny thing is...

[killjoe]

"Microsoft invented the XmlHttpRequest functionality,"

Microsoft invented XMLHttpRequest because before that people were using tiny little java applets to accomplish the same thing. In fact the original version of remote scripting in IE also used a java applet. When MS decided that java was the enemy they figured a way to do it without java.

I for one see no need for AJAX, it's better to just write java applications or even applets (or thinlets).

List of websites using Ajax

[Sundroid]

Here is a fairly long list of websites that use AJAX -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_usin g_Ajax

Re:Incoming data

[KiloByte]

1. The good ancient way.

Try this:
#!/usr/bin/perl
print "Content-type: text/plain\n\n";
$|=1;
(print '.'),sleep 1 while 1;

2. With XMLHttpRequest:

var req = new XMLHttpRequest();
req.multipart=1; ....

and the server-side part uses content-type: multipart/x-mixed-replace

Accessibility

[leighklotz]

AJAX, being a random collection of JavaScript hacks, doesn't offer any accessibility.

So you can't use it in software that might be sold to, for example US Government customers -- no national laboratories, no NASA, etc.

UNLESS -- you write your own accessibility aids and write your own UI framework that compiles into both an AJAX version and a web accessible version.
That's a tall order. However, there is help.

You can write your web pages in HTML with XForms and let XForms handle the dynamic page aspects, and then offer up the HTML+XForms as the accessible version. (See the DHTML Accessibility Roadmap.)

Everything that the AJAX cloud of applications does with the XMLHTTP object and updating the DOM on the fly to display choices can be done with XForms.

Then, you can use one of these mechanisms to convert the server-side XHTML+XForms file into AJAX:

• FormFaces A pure AJAX library that runs in today's browsers. It's stunning to see how simply this works.
• Chiba A server-side engine in Java that integrates with TomCat or other Apache web server technologies to produce HTML that works in today's browsers. Plus, the plain-old-HTML output of Chiba is accessible right now, in addition to the XHTML+XForms file itself. (Caveat: Full AJAX implementation is in development, according to the mailing list.)
• Orbeon Ops, like Chiba, Orbeon converts to HTML for today's browsers in its Java back end, but rather than integrating into your TomCat or Coccoon framework, it comes with its own framework that helps you separate presentation from content and write your applications.

If you want to serve up the XHTML+XForms directly, and not rely on any AJAX technologies, try these:

• Mozilla XForms for Mozilla and FireFox, an XPI that's available for recent betas and nightlies, this one-click install adds native XForms support to these browsers. Still in Beta, but with plenty of developers, it should be a full implementation.
• FormsPlayer for Windows provides full support for XForms in Internet Explorer via a plug-in. Plug-ins are not everyone's cup of tea, but then neither is Mozilla ;-). You can get the AJAX benefits of dynamic page updating and yet still retain accessibility with any of the server-side or JavaScript engines above, but if your target deployment is Internet Explorer, you can gain tremendous access to advanced features inside IE with this plug-in. (Plus it has some neat Konfabulator-like tools such as SideWinder.)
  

So, try them out, and see how much easier it is to write accessible code and properly separate your data and presentation layers when you use XHTML, CSS, and XForms. Then, choose a middleware solution or a browser-based solution and go forward knowing that you can meet architectural requirements without getting bogged down in JavaScript toolkits.

Re:Accessibility

[Bogtha]

AJAX, being a random collection of JavaScript hacks, doesn't offer any accessibility.

So you can't use it in software that might be sold to, for example US Government customers -- no national laboratories, no NASA, etc.

UNLESS -- you write your own accessibility aids and write your own UI framework that compiles into both an AJAX version and a web accessible version.

This irritates me. This is not true. And yet moderators without a clue have pushed it up to +5, Informative. And any newbie web developers who read this are going to think that they have to choose between AJAX and accessibility. Some of them are going to choose AJAX and not bother with accessibility. If your post had been down at -1, Wrong, they might not get that impression, and would go on to write accessible AJAX web applications.

You don't have to choose. You don't have to write "UI frameworks" that you have to "compile". That's nonsense. What you do is you write the non-AJAX version, and then you add the AJAX as an optional extra. When people have Javascript turned off, they get the basic version seamlessly. Perfectly accessible, none of the complicated nonsense you claim is necessary.

Please stop propogating this myth. If you want to promote your favourite technologies, then by all means do so, but don't lie about the alternatives to make them look bad.

Re:real reason why

[misleb]

It is bullshit. AJAX does NOT give one the ability to deliver desktop quality applications through the web. Not even close. Sorry. At best, AJAX spices up traditional web applications. But it is still using HTML/CSS for the UI. The HTML/CSS document model simply doesn't work well for desktop quality applications.

Saying that AJAX will allow one to deliver desktop quality applications is like saying central heating will turn a mobile home into a mansion.

-matthew