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

Hype, Hype, Hype

[AKAImBatman]

Man, are they ever hyping this stuff. This story doesn't seem to actually cover anything new, it just hypes AJAX more!

The truth is that the stuff we've seen in AJAX so far is nothing. I don't know about anyone else, but I've used it in regular webapps as nothing more than an interface enhancement. People don't even really notice the fact that the web pages work much smoother.

That being said, there's a massive untapped potential in this technology. I've got demos of Video Games in AJAX, as well as a full Desktop. I tried to get Google interested in the video games concept, but I'm afraid they ignored my communication. :-(

Re:Hype, Hype, Hype

[dalmaer]

I agree that there is a lot of hype out there. As is often the case, the hype machine doesn't come from the people actually using it. We have been interviewing Ajax developers on our Audible Ajax podcast, and as always, the developers are not religious "Ajax everywhere, it is a silver bullet!" nuts. They are pragmatic, know when it makes sense, and when it doesn't. And, they also know the pain points. I for one hope the hype doesn't ruin things by setting the expectations as crazy as they are. Ajax is great in that it gives you reach, and is built on open standards. It is causing browsers to give us APIs that we have wanted for a long time, and can take the web to the next level, along with other technologies. There is a long way to go though. We need to learn when to use it, and need to focus on usability in general, and not using Ajax just because it is cool. We do a lot of Ajax consulting, and one of the biggest things we do is get people away from the question "so I want you to build an Ajax application". Cheers, Dion

Funny thing is...

[man_of_mr_e]

Microsoft basically invented AJAX, yet they're the ones behind the curve.

Microsoft invented the XmlHttpRequest functionality, AND they've been using AJAX (before that's what it was called) in Outlook Web Access (OWA) for years. Nobody else in the company seemed to have caught on to it though.

There's something very familiar about all this

[fiannaFailMan]

Sounds familiar, could have sworn I read something about this here the other day.

Anyway. Let's not fill this page up with 'Dupe' complaints. Macromedia are probably gonna have to re-think things (in the new Adobe environment, of course) since they were convinced that Flash would be the vehicle of choice in developing what they call Rich Web Applications. They'll now have to sell it on the basis that you can get a hell of a lot of functionality out of very few lines of Flex code.

It's gonna be interesting.

Incoming data

[n0dalus]

I think that if AJAX picks up and starts to be used everywhere, we should standardize a system so that optionaly, a web browser can inform the server that it has the option to connect to it using an open port on that system. It would really help things if the browser didn't need to connect to the server every few minutes to check for new data. That way, instead of my browser connecting to Gmail's servers every 60 seconds to check for new mail, Gmail's servers can connect to my browser and tell me only when I have new email. This saves processing and bandwidth and increases usability.
This turns AJAX into more of an actual internet protocol, and I think it would really improve things.

AJAX: Almost Just like an Application!

[MobyDisk]

AJAX is great. It means that web deployed applications are now almost as good as the regular applications we've been using for over 10 years! Just imagine: We can enhance Javascript to support more OO features and reflection and add JIT and it will become just like Java! Yaaay! Then we can add support for stronger typing and compiling to native code, and then it will be just like C! Yaay!

It is funny to watch technology reinvent itself in fast-forward.

I work for a company that did AJAX long before it was called AJAX. And now that it is the next hot thing they are moving away from it. Why? Because they already learned the lesson that everyone else is about to figure out: AJAX is a b*stard to code and maintain. It is easier to write a client-server application in a traditional language and web deploy it than to write this crazy JavaScript + XML + HTML + DHTML + CSS stuff.

Java and .NET natively support this. For other languages there are plenty of frameworks that will add that capability.

Section 508 Compliance

[JMUChrisF]

It really stinks when you want to play with these technologies, but as a federal contractor, not something we can do.

I don't think there are too many screen readers our there that can handle AJAX quite yet.

Hmm.. screen reader built onto Firefox? Notices when stuff changes. I could build that. Sweet.

Re:Platform independent?

[dmeranda]

It's almost platform independent. The main problem which primarily afflicts Microsoft's use of AJAX, such as in Outlook Web, is the way that the "A" in AJAX is "started".

Basically to initiate an HTTP asynchronous request, the Javascript code must create a special object which encapsulates the request and communication. Althought the interface and use of this object is for the most part standard, the way in which it is initially created is not.

• Standard (everybody but IE): req = new XMLHttpRequest();
• MS-IE (new): req = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");
• MS-IE (old): req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");

So if you want a platform independent AJAX app, you pretty much need a bit of code which does things the Microsoft way when the standard ways don't work. Like:

try {
req = new XMLHttpRequest(); /* The pseudo-standard way */
} catch(e) {
try {
req = new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP");
} catch (e) {
try {
req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
} catch (E) {
req = false;
} } }

Now, Microsoft-written applications which use AJAX only try the MS ActiveX methods, and not the standard XMLHttpRequest() function. Thus, although most of the application could have worked in any browser, this simple omission by Microsoft insures it only works under IE (and locks you into their technology).

It should also be noted that AJAX is a methodology and not a strictly defined API. For instance most AJAX apps rely heavily on the DOM API, which Microsoft mostly but not entirely adheres to. So there's lots of things that can cause platform independence problems if not coded carefully.

Re:real reason why

[hahn]

>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.

Of course not. It delivers a desktop-LIKE feel to certain web applications. However, that is NOT the only point of it. Other advantages include:
#1 Immediate deployment - You can distribute your web-served application nearly instantly. Tell me what corporation WOULDN'T love the idea of having their 1000 employees have near instant access to an Office-like application and not have their IT department lift a pinky finger?
#2 Portability - I can use the same application at any location and it'll have the same feel. If website also offers storage, I can also work on the same document/e-mail/project. Don't tell me that you wouldn't find a web version of MS Word that you could access from any internet connected computer, INCREDIBLY useful.
#3 Everyone would be using the most up-to-date versions. I'm sick of having to download updates to my dozens of programs. Would LOVE it if everytime I used an app, I didn't have to even think about it.
#4 Takes up very little space on your harddrive, and doesn't mess with your OS. Yes, storage is cheap, but raise your hand if you haven't had to ever re-install Windows (or simply chose to do so) because you've installed and uninstalled so many freaking apps on your computer, your registry is FUBAR, and your OS feels like it's running on a 386? How about because your menus read like an encyclopedia index of apps and are just cluttered beyond all recognition? Yeah, thought so. Plus, I just hate having a 10 gig application, that I use like once a month, sitting on my machine. Makes defragmenting, virus scans, and ad-ware scanning a royal pain too.

So yes, you are correct, in that it can't quite match the snappiness of a local app. Not yet anyhow but that's what's great about technology, eh? What's not possible today, IS possible tomorrow. But aside from that, the advantages I listed above FAR outweigh the disadvantage of not having a "true" local app "feel". Whatever that means anyhow.