Slashdot Mirror
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."
Now if we can just keep AJAX and ditch Javascript.
From TFA: "AJAX brings together some hot properties, Javascript, HTML/DHTML and HTML"
So it has DHTML/HTML and HTML? Wow, three HTMLs! Buzzwords ho!
It seems that ActiveX is being widely adopted for web apps only insofar as it is used in IE for the XmlHttpRequest.
English is easier said than done.
Farris: Microsoft is probably interested in AJAX for the same reasons everyone is interested in AJAX: the ability to deliver desktop quality applications through the Web.
and charge "subscription fees" for it too.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Microsoft was using Ajax before anyone ever even heard of google. Outlook web interface anyone? Cmon, at least be semi-accurate.
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.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
I don't mind dupes. I don't really think about spelling- or grammatical errors (queue jokes because I'm not careful here). But do we, readers of slashdot, really need to be lectured what AJAX is?
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
What's next, summary teaching us what programming languages or computer is?
Bah, this is slightly annoying.
I noticed at the technet launch for vs2005 (the local one they did in my area on tuesday) that a lot of the new components in the web development toolbox use ajax. It was pretty slick I must admit. Drag and drop them on a form and use them.
I've never used visual studio for web stuff, and I don't know if it can be used to do stuff like that without getting tied into asp or whatever, but it was impressive what they can do with it.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Asynchronous And XML?
With out Javascript AJAX doesn't work.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
AJAX brings together some hot properties, Javascript, HTML/DHTML and HTML
So what you're trying to say is "AJAX brings together Javascript."
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Oh my! Read the headline: Goole and Microsoft.
Read the rest. Oh well, some other, insignificat company that is advertising on slashdot! Great!
Can someone PLEASE not approve these stories? Story about a nice AJAX webmail - great and interesting. Using completely out of context comparisons to M$ and Google - wrong advertisement.
Just my 2 cent...
Anyone remember the old Gary Larson cartoon? Man talking to dog, bubble above dogs head captioned, "what dogs hear."
"blah blah blah AJAX, blah blah blahblah AJAX!!1!. blahblahblah Google blah AJAX, blah Microsoft sux."
AJAX is so 2005, we should use new technologies.
Advanced features like drag 'n drop, dropdown menus and faster performance capabilities
A very nice offer. Really. Something fresh and new: DnD and Menus. 1984?
a significant leap
21 years back. Honestly I don't like it, AJAX is not good for the users, not good for the developpers. All of that could be replaced by Java or any similar tech. With much better results. Let's switch to the Web 3.0 directly.
Million Dollar Screenshot
The .Net alternative IS AJAX. VS.Net 2k5 has AJAX components built in. It takes a mater of seconds to get AJAX running in 2k5. There are also plug ins available for VS 2k2/2k3 to run AJAX.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The .NET alternative, which comes as a part of .NET 2.0/Visual Studio 2005, is Atlas.
Here's an overview.
...when it was called DHTML?
C17H21NO4
Just wait until microsoft defines is "standard" AJAX interface.
What i would like to see is the US goverment and other countries to force them to adopt clean, industry defined standards like the XML, HTML,CSS, AJAX and not an assimilated badly digest crappy way of doing things that breaks the WEB. They should be more humble since the WEB has given a good chance for all companies to develop and sell new products, and microsoft is no exception here, aldo they have wakeup lately to this.
" What is the .NET alternative to this? Why is it tied to Javascript??" .NET for Mac, Linux, Palm OS, Symbian, or Solaris.
I believe that it is called jscript.net
And why is it tied to JavaScript?
1. It runs client side.
2. As far as I know their isn't a
3. Why not? JavaScript is used just about everywhere.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
This was even mentioned in a Slashdot story (yesterday I think) about a memo or something from a MS employee.
I'm not sure if your comment was intended as a pointed jab at the buzzword status of AJAX or a serious suggestion that JavaScript is crappy, but I'm assuming the second.
There are some things about JavaScript that are really annoying. First, the object orientation seems very odd. It is well-rooted in the language, but it is quite annoying not to have real object namespaces (yes, you can use closures, but they're annoying and kludgy), real constructors, and that sort of stuff. It's almost as bad as Perl's hash + namespace = object idea, and worse in some ways.
What I'd like, I guess, is a language that is very similar to JavaScript, but has a real object-oriented system and better support for things like loading code dynamically. It's clear that JavaScript or some future variant of it is finally being used the right way--to make pages dynamic instead of just annoying--but right now it's very cumbersome. Loading Gmail, for example, is quite slow, because it (IIRC) downloads a huge chunk of code at the beginning. Perhaps someone (maybe me) could write a wrapper system in JavaScript that uses XmlHttpRequest to load JavaScript code on demand. But some sort of modular functionality ought to be officially added to JavaScript, before it's too late and we end up with the next "___ Wars"... this time it will be the fight between JavaScript frameworks.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
Who will be the first to try and patent something "using AJAX..."?
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.
Java icon? WTF?
..were rambling about this in an email which was leaked a few days ago
MS basically invented AJAX (methinks) and have not yet take full advantage of the technology. It is rather funny how they are both lauding AJAX only after Google has fully utilized it and made it 'cool'...
Don't you mean ATLAS?
Another in a proud tradition of advertisements masqerading as Slashdot stories....
"Google Gmail and Google Maps are good examples of a very simple use of AJAX."
I would go out on a limb here and say that neither of these applications could be considered "simple" within any stretch of the word.
Who is this lady anyway?
Browsers could spend alot less effort kludging together DHTML and javascript and ride for free off of the JVM. I understand the JVM is a separate download, but browsers can include it as part of their install. I don't see why were a celebrating the creation of such a kludge with random inconsistencies across browsers and platforms that are far worse then what you find when targeting the JVM.
I can't recall, in almost 10 years of using browsers, ever comming across a website which used 'Drag and Drop' Other than as a Toy, have there been any?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What is it with this EVERYTHING on the Internet is a webpage. The browser is the only client these days outside IM and P2P warez trading for 95% of users. And even though Javascript was never intended for 'real' programming it is the only language all browsers implement so it is what everyone is forced to use. It wasn't supposed to be this way and it doesn't have to BE this way.
If nothing else, if we want to download clients and run them in the browser, having them talk to a backend server for the data, why not get a more appropriate language? Java would be perfect if Sun weren't a bunch of asshats, but just because it won't ever be truly Free or cross platform is no reason to reject other candidates. Tcl/Tk has had a fully sandboxed browser plugin for a decade and it is 100% Free Software. It runs on every known platform where IE or Mozilla runs and could be ported anywhere else needed. I'm sure it isn't the only one. Or do we continue shoehorning everything into html?
Democrat delenda est
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!
.NET natively support this. For other languages there are plenty of frameworks that will add that capability.
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
I just don't get the hype. What can you do with an AJAX interface that you can't do better with a native client application?
Sure, browsers work on every platform, and AJAX apps don't need a download, that's great. But the same thing could be done with java if everyone had a JVM, or anything else.
AJAXs means reinventing the GUI, only with a more difficult to use, hacked together API
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Actually, there is. http://www.mono-project.com
My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch.
If you are typing on a web page that uses XMLHTTPRequest, then you should treat it as if you were running a live program remotely. I.E. the web page could forward information about everything you type, how you move your mouse, etc, without an explicit 'submit'. Example : it if were an email app, and you typed 'my boss is a dick and my SSN is 555-55-5555' in an edit control, and then thought better of it and erased what you typed and killed the browser window without submitting, the contents could already have been captured and forwarded to the host with XMLHTTPRequest and you never knew it. Looks like a good cross site scripting opportunity.
Of course, you usually don't know if a page is using XMLHTTPRequest in a hidden frame unless you look really hard, so I guess the bottom line is never type anything on a web page you don't want the world to see. On the other hand, AFAIK (which doesn't mean much) this hasn't shown up in practice, so maybe it isn't that big a deal.
Many of us do web development in environments that REQUIRE accessibility and nonvisual functionality. Most major corporations and media sites, all government sites, and most non-profits require that their web properties be open and functional for all of the webs users. Unlike traditional websites...or even traditional applications...AJAX webapps are typically unusuable for anyone with any kind of disability that requires assistive software. Even worse, there appears to be very little interest among the major players in correcting these problems despite the fact that a rapidly increasing number of websites are making use of AJAX.
AJAX has potential, but it isn't mature enough to be used on mass market websites that provide essential services or information that is intended for a global audience. Microsoft knows this, which is why their AJAX apps typically have a non-AJAX clone that can be used instead. Google, OTOH, simply slams the door on noncompatible users. Neither model is particularly efficient or acceptable for most companies.
There is nothing so pathetic as seeing a beautiful young theory roughed up by a tough gang of facts.
Guys, this is pretty funny. It's a pimpkin carved something like the gotase guy. Weird, but reasonably work-safe.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Wasn't Ajax meant for cleaning up anyways ?
As a web user I don't give a shit what the application is made of as long as it works and doesn't open me up to all the security nightmares of the day.
Do I care that I can get a full desktop application on the web? I don't because I already have one and free too. Video games? Nope, got'em and they're better too.
Do something I don't have. If it can get me laid all the better.
Deleted
Thank God, because most web apps are atrocious.
Google maps shows that an interface can be fast.
We are still missing 'reliable', and 'more UI elements'.
On an aside, XUL brings more UI elements to the (moz) browser. BUT, have you tried to program the treeview? Crap, it takes me back to the horrid GTK1.0 treeview which was implemented on a listview. I pretty much had to give up on XUL for my current project.
How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
Ooh it's AJAX, OMG it's going to change the world!!! Is it just me or did this post feel like an advertisement for a bunch of organizations that like to sell simple things packaged in a fancy wrapper?
AJAX brings together some hot properties, Javascript, HTML/DHTML and HTML, according to Julie Hanna Farris
Translation: Asynchronous Javascript and (x)(ht)ml bring together some hot properties: Javascript, HTML and HTML with Javascript, and HTML, according to Julie Hanna Farris.
Remember when Java came out? Well the Wordperfect suite was rewritten in Java to be cross-platform blah blah blah. So much for Wordperfect.
Considering the huge rise in personal storage space and computing power in smaller and smaller packages, re-writing things like office suites so they run on the web (instead of in your own hand) is a retarded waste of time. The real benefit of AJAX will be some intelligent use of it for some new, exciting purpose that does not make sense on one's own laptop, pocketpc, etc. One of those would be to access databases too huge for local storage (hm, google anyone? archived mailing lists?) or things that change rapidly and are large (weather maps?) or things that need to be accessed rapidly from different locations by multiple people at different times using powerful equipment... you get the idea.
as for MS Office and Outlook... HA! Suites will be a commodity that come on USB keys as a value-add the way photo editing software comes with cameras and scanners and firewire cards, etc.
I'm amazed that even this "expert" in the article seems to not understand the difference between DHTML and AJAX. And I also find it funny that XMLHttpRequest is a MicroSoft developed technology and yet people like this "expert" feel the need to point out that M$ isn't interested in falling in line with the AJAX standard......
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
What typically sets Microsoft apart from other AJAX application providers is that they do not appear to be interested in the cross-browser capabilities of AJAX applications. One can speculate that Microsoft has ample motivation to use Windows and Internet Explorer-specific features that create a dependency between their AJAX apps, IE [Internet Explorer] and the Windows platform/ecosystem. This has been the case historically.
It really isn't true at all that Microsoft isn't interested in browser compatability when it comes to AJAX. The team that worked on Start.com has spent a lot of time on browser compatability, and ultimately Live.com and other Microsoft sites will support other browsers as well. It is true that in Microsoft's dream world they would like people to only use IE, but in reality that isn't the case and they aren't turning a blind eye to it.
I think the reason that Microsoft has been so slow to implement AJAX for some of their web based offerings is that they envision a better method for the UI of web based apps that is more consistent with the way desktop apps are written. Ideally, you don't want to write an app with a desktop interface, then have to port it to the web, ensure compatability with various browsers, etc. Anyone who has tried to write AJAX code realizes that its something of a hack, and ultimately I think it will be replaced by another technology (perhaps Windows Presentation Foundation if Microsoft has its way).
What does the article mean by "cleaning up"? Regarding MS and Google, I'd expect it to mean "making a lot of money", but that's not supported in the article. In fact, recent news shows MS thinks it's missing out on business by not doing enough AJAX - hardly evidence they're making a lot of money off of it.
Maybe the writer means "tidying up". Like hiding software problems on a backend that is maintained without the users noticing upgrades or details of failures. Maybe just putting a thin-client cross-platform mask on giant software complexity "cleans it up". But that's not referred to in the article, either.
--
make install -not war
I prefer AJASON - that is, replace XML with JavaScript Object Notation or, serialized javasacript objects. It parses much faster and easier than XML.
I have a JSON class for PHP which lets me serialze any PHP object into JSON. I can send the JSON to the client, eval() it with javascript and viola, my PHP object is now a JavaScript object.
The only problem with it is that there isn't an object serializer built into JavaScript (that I'm aware), so sending data back to the PHP script isn't as easy. I haven't been able to find any classes that do it either...
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
ATLAS is MS's new toolset designed to make working with AJAX easier.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Here is a fairly long list of websites that use AJAX -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_usin g_Ajax
Sun and Fun
It's avalon really. MS is hoping that people stop developing HTML/AJAX applications once their version of XUL hits the streets. AJAX applications are very dangerous because they don't require windows, thankfully avalon does!.
evil is as evil does
Why is this article marked under the 'Java' category by slashdot? That's amazingly silly. xmlhttprequest has *nothing* to do with java.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
JavaSript is not related in any way to Java. It was a cold day in November 1995 when Bill Joy, in contract negotiations between Sun and Netscape, told them "sure, go ahead and use the name JavaScript."
Sort of funny when you think about the current protection of the Java trademark, or whatever it is.
p.s. yes I was there
More like, "Google uses it, and Microsoft invented it".
Indeed. This story is absolutely unbelievable revisionist history and nonsense. I've written about my feelings of AJAX (in fact I was honored to see that an AC already referenced it in this thread), and this article is exactly what pisses me off about the new-to-web-apps "AJAX" converts. This messaging expert is yet another dumb-ass trying to get in on the Web 2.0 action to earn some VC funding. She even used the word "paradigm" to really put up the flags.
From their web page.
""Atlas" is not merely another implementation of AJAX. Instead, "Atlas" extends the AJAX concept in two significant ways. First, the "Atlas" client script libraries dramatically simplify the tasks of creating rich UIs and remote procedures calls by providing you with true object-oriented APIs and components for Atlas development. Second, "Atlas" extends the AJAX concept by providing a rich, integrated server development platform in ASP.NET 2.0. The "Atlas" server components include ASP.NET Web services and server controls that enable you to take advantage of the power of ASP.NET, such as the ASP.NET profiles service, in an "Atlas" application."
It looks like a embrace and extend version of AJAX.
evil is as evil does
Before AJAX, Web apps would have to work around the lack of something like drag 'n drop with check boxes and multiple clicks, resulting in multiple steps that quickly become laborious and time-consuming for users.
I remember using dhtml menus in 1999, i think she's got Ajax confused with onHover...
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
What you want to learn, then, is RPC or CORBA or any of its variants. You may already realize this, but you've simply described a typical client-server application.
I think it would really improve things.
Maybe. Maybe not. Do you like the idea of subscription-based software? That's where AJAX inevitably leads.
What AJAX provides us with is rich web applications - applications *approaching* the responsiveness of thick-client apps - without the need to install them, which is good. Don't fool yourself, though: the geeks love AJAX because it is shiny and new; the suits love AJAX because it enables them to move closer to a goal they've slobbered over for years: subscription-based software. AJAX is demonstrating that you can build feature-rich, responsive web applications on the web that someone can *easily* prevent you from using if you do not pony up your monthly fees on demand.
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:
If you want to serve up the XHTML+XForms directly, and not rely on any AJAX technologies, try these:
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.
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.
...as they say
Not really.
We have this mechanism with active FTP.
On this page http://slacksite.com/other/ftp.html
there is pretty good description how it works.
This is not high risk, because the port need to be opened for a short time.
And after the connection is created, there is no need to listen more on this port, just keep the connection.
You will accept connection only from the host in the url, and will not accept connections from other hosts.
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.
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:
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.
Because the success of the Web is primarily about linking together data. HTML has proved itself as a flexible way to express that data, to link it together, and (increasingly) to structure it. That's what the language was designed for. Remember, HTML was not intended as a language for layout or for graphic design. If you trade in HTML for code (as you propose*), then the structure and semantics of that data is then locked up in the code, walled off from the rest of the Web. You lose all the benefits of standard representation and network effects - which matters, because the best web apps rely on data. For example, fragment identifiers, browser extensions, web crawlers (e.g. for search), the ability to target different device characteristics through CSS, and accessibility features all rely on HTML (granted, AJAX tends to be weak in supporting some of these, e.g. accessibility). You also, incidentally, wall of your code from the rest of the content of your page.
* Admittedly I haven't looked at applets in years; maybe there has been some movement toward resolving this problem.
but the discussion is archived. You need a new sig.
Incidentally, I was taking the train eight months ago to Boston, and a neatly-dressed, non-uniformed man walked into the station with a huge chrome revolver strapped to his belt. Nobody panicked, the lady at the counter gave him a ticket and he got on my train. Nobody asked him for police ID or gun registration papers and nobody seemed to mind at all.
I felt safer than I've ever felt on a plane, especially now that they confiscate most of my weapons on boarding.
But mono is only a subset of .NET with some extensions..
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
AJAX brings together some hot properties, Javascript, HTML/DHTML and HTML, according to Julie Hanna Farris, founder of Scalix
How redundant. DHTML = Javascript + CSS + Html... simply saying DHTML + XML is enough to explain AJAX.
And as for Why is it tied to Javascript?? because it is all Javascript. There's no real VB alternative, and I for one am happy about that.
Basically, you instantiate the Javascript object, create a URL for it to call and make the call. In theory the server answering the URL call will return a well formed XML document that can be parsed. Then the returned data can be formatted by the Javascript engine on the client side.
It's beautiful because it moves load to the client side, and speeds up page performance (in general).
In short, there's no .NET equivelent but there are .NET tools that help make development easier. See System.XML for more information.
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
Although Ajax started out life talking about JavaScript, html, css, etc. It was never defined as an acronym. In my opinion the promise of "Ajax" is not XMLHttpRequest. The shift is in the architecture. Instead of a full request/response/redraw cycle, we can do what any application framework allows, in that we can talk back to the server based on any action (click, hover, sneeze) get some response, and dynamically change something on the page. This change is powerful and a no-brainer. Imagine if you clicked on a button if you email client and every widget re-drew itself each time! We have to not go crazy though. The bests uses of Ajax are often subtle, as we don't want to leave behind our users. One of the great things about the web is that my grandma knows how to use it. See a link. click it. Same for a button. Learn a few buttons (back/forward/reload). We need to make sure that our web applications are still usable. With ajax you can INCREASE usability if you are careful, but you also have the power to do the opposite.
Does it generate FF/Opera compatible code?
If you can't find a way, make one!
> AJAX brings together some hot properties, Javascript,
:rollseyes
> HTML/DHTML and HTML, according to Julie Hanna Farris
Brr...brrr...brrrp! "Viruses and adware have been detected on your computer! Would you like to download the new WINFixer 2006, AJAX edition now?"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
In their Domino Web Access email, calendar, contacts and notes application. Demo here:/ dwa.html
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/lotus/demos
If I remember correctly they won an award for best web application in a Linux conference some years ago.
More imporantly, are "Linux" and "AJAX" the new "Synergy" and "Enterprise-class" (buzzwords)? If so, then I'm announcing my new company will be using Linux and AJAX to do wireless stuff with audio players. Give me money.
I don't respond to AC's.
what are some good sites about astorturfing?
2 1337 4 u!
You have hit two of the hot ones.
The event model is painful to work with cross browser. That is why we have to have our own code abstracting things away, or using the good frameworks out there that do this (Dojo, Zimbra, ...).
There are lots of features such as offline capabilities, browser side caches, etc... but the most bang for the buck is just getting the browsers to actually implement all of the standards correctly. This is in DOM, CSS, HTML, JavaScript.
If this gap can keep closing (it is a lot better now than a few years ago) then I will be happy.
The big scare is that MS goes nuts and breaks everything :)
MS said that they consider some of SVG not hardware acceleratable (er, really?) and that is why they have a kinda subset within XAML.
Canvas in IE would be great too.
And a nice JavaScript VM (HotSpot-able), that doesn't leak memory would be great too.
Dion
1)User Interface Issues:
The back, stop, and refresh buttons don't always work.
Since Ajax applications generate pages dynamically, there generally aren't static links available for bookmarking or sharing with others.
Pages don't always print well.
Applications don't run offline.
Clicks and actions generally don't get included into a browser's history table.
We need to be aware of issues like this, but we have fixes for many of these already, and more are coming.
2) Ajax requiring JavaScript and ActiveX on IE
ok..Is that such a huge issue these days? And IE 7 will have native support for XHR at least.
If we keep coming up with quality Ajax applications, then that will be the reason to have JavaScript turned on!
3)Perceived application performance
It is easy to make something slow, or seem slow. However, you only need to play with Yahoo! Mail beta to see how a fully functional app runs like a charm. So, we can do it, and it will only get better for us!
There are definitely issues, and there are MANY things that we all wish we had. But, none of these should scare us.
Was Microsoft's incompatible IE version. If you work hard, you can write a great UI in anything. The point is, there's no intrinsic benefit to AJAX other then that it works everywhere, but that's just a coincidence, and says nothing about the technology itself.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Atlas is the toolkit for creating AJAX-like apps. But ASP.NET 2.0 has the built-in, low-level functionality for implementing callbacks (which is what Atlas uses underneath the covers, if I'm not mistaken... which I may be, I've not explore Atlas in detail).
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Internet Explorer 7 will include a native XMLHttpRequest object so instantiating it will be the same as every other browser.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
>> Standard (everybody but IE): req = new XMLHttpRequest();
Um, since Microsoft INVENTED the fist XMLHTTP object, they could not use the "standard" method; It did not exist.
As they did it first, it was the de-facto standard that everyone else copied.
Now others have copied it, blessed it as "The Standard"(TM) and now people bitching because MS has not gone back and changed the way they do it?
That is pretty stupid.
I guess it is just like Americans telling the Brits they should *speak English*.
Jorgie
common tactic in pushing an agenda is to first give legitimacy by name dropping 800 pound gorillas in the same sentence as your bandwagoned advertising agenda. by throwing the microsoft name around in the same breath, the PR flack that submitted this story just got what she wanted: eyeballs on her pitch.
Telerik and ComponentArt both utilize AJAX in their ASP.net controls and from what I've seen are by far the best examples of what AJAX can really do.....the stuff scalix was demoing was not impressive.
it's called auto-save and it's enabled by default.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
What's worse is they either are lying intentionally, or don't know what they're talking about:
So, when can we have an "Ask Slashdot - How do I get slashdot to pimp MY business?" Because that's all this article is.
Please stop that crap. AJAX is not responsible for drag'n'drop, dropdowns.
Microsoft invented AJAX in, what, 1999? Of course, they didn't call it that, but invent it they did.
Specifically, Microsoft invented XmlHttpRequest and pioneered its use in Outlook Web Access. OWA is an important feature for Microsoft. It gives a fantastic client-like email experience over the web.
Oddly enough, none of Microsoft's other teams (MSN, anybody?) decided to use the AJAX approach in their products. This seems like a huge misstep and showcases just how large and disconnected Microsoft, the company, is.
In the intervening years, Google managed to swoop in and take up the AJAX crown -- to the betterment of web users the world over.
My main concern with AJAX is the back button, and browser history issues. Is there anything being done to address these, or do we try and re-train web surfers to stop using back buttons and web histories?
For those of you complaining about how JS suffers from various browsers inconsistencies and bugs, and how it should have a [hard-to-build] framework that handles all this, take a look at the following:
t /user/Window_2.html
/. the other day, and was quite impressed -- even if it still has a ways to go before it hits prime time).
http://qooxdoo.oss.schlund.de/demo/dev/public/tes
(I discovered this through
I'm just finishing a project where QooxDoo (when its a bit more finished) would have been the cat's ass.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What! The mighty Ajax is all of the following:
1. A couple of guys from "The Iliad".
2. The name of a bunch of cars from the early part of the 20th century.
3. A major Dutch soccer team.
4. A toilet and bath cleaner.
5. A town in Ontario.
6. A character from the movie "Flash Gordon".
7. A "web technology" whose component parts have existed for ages, but marketing people believe makes them sound smart and "cutting edge".
8. Many other things.
It is NOT, and has NEVER BEEN, a mere "window cleaner"! Good god, man!
Microsoft may have "invented" XMLHTTPRequest, but then they ignored it for, what, 5-6 years?
Did they see the potential? No. They created a transfer mechanism back when XML was getting hyped, then forgot about it. And it wasn't the only mechanism "invented" back then, and it's not the only one available to "AJAX" apps. For example, hidden frames, iframes, and hidden images.
It took other bright minds to see the potential of DOM/DHTML and background data exchange, and put it to use. Try googling for "XMLHTTPRequest" - see any microsoft.com URIs in the top ten? Nope?
Catch you later.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
"What typically sets Microsoft apart from other AJAX application providers is that they do not appear to be interested in the cross-browser capabilities of AJAX applications. One can speculate that Microsoft has ample motivation to use Windows and Internet Explorer-specific features that create a dependency between their AJAX apps, IE [Internet Explorer] and the Windows platform/ecosystem. This has been the case historically. "
.NETE) knows that this is complete BS. The frame works includes scripts for all major browsers.
Anyone who has tested the Atlas framework (MS version of AJAX for
BS!
www.live.com works in Firefox and so does start.com, both MS applications...
Yes Outlook Webaccess doens't, but to generelize and say MS applications don't is far from the truth.
Javascript is not Java. Other than some of its syntax the only thing it has in common with Java is the name.
Writing an AJAX page with out a tool like Atlas is possible, but a royal pain in the ass. Atlas makes it easier on both side, and adds in common functionality so that you don't have to redesign the wheel every time you goto the store.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
It generates HTML/CSS/XML. And I need to type more with out using caps to get this post past the lameness filter. -Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You should probably also check if XMLHttpRequest is enabled/supported without using the flawed browser sniffing method.
if (typeof XMLHttpRequest != 'undefined')
Gre-e-e-at, AJAX is the hottest language on the planet. I'll queue it behind the 2,567,899,110 *other* hottest languages on the planet I'll get around to learning some day, right after I've fully mastered the piddling mere trivial ten I know.
Good call.
If I'd known I'd been sitting on such a "hot" invention for so long, I would have surely sold it. I guess my skill in coming up with new names for old and existing things are rusty. Or is it that I thought everyone knew this shit already?
I turns out that I'm not meant for sales or marketing. I'm so sad about that too. Apparently they have to take the fun out of everything. I really enjoyed some of those projects I did several years ago, now to do the same thing again I'd have to justify why I don't want to struggle against $VENDOR's AJAX toolkit. It used to be I could concentrate on getting something interesting done, but it seems vendors are now destined to remove all that extraneous fun and replace it with user concerns like business rules and such, where's the job satisfaction in that?
Thanks for pointing that out. It's sad that people assume that just because the particular AJAX web application they are familiar with is inaccessible, that means every AJAX application is. Imagine if they applied that logic elsewhere. "Operating systems are inherently unstable, just load up Windows ME if you don't believe me." "Germans are inherently evil, just look at Hitler if you don't believe me." Generalisations based on a handful of examples are stupid.
This is true, and I can see how my previous comments might give the wrong impression. However, Javascript can and often does interfere with accessibility even when the user-agent supports it. Properly constructed web applications should function just fine with Javascript off, or with a fully-abled user using a user-agent with Javascript. However, a disabled person using a user-agent with Javascript on throws so many variables into the mix that I think it's safer to switch it off altogether. Perhaps this will change as the DHTML accessibility improvements going into browsers gain popularity, and when the screen reader vendors get a clue and start reading the W3C specifications.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
What exactly does that coffee cup next to this article have to do with AJAX?
I use the AJAX for YahooMail FireFox Extension and its, quoteing Billy Crystal, "absolutely marvelous".
I like the ability to read or preview an email without actually having to reload the page. It makes YahooMail almost as much of a joy to use as GMail...almost. GMail is superior in my honest opinion. Yahoo could learn a few things from GMail if they only paid attention.
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
thezorch@gmail.com
http://thezorch.googlepages.com/home
My favorite bit:
"AJAX enables advanced features like drag 'n drop, dropdown menus and faster performance capabilities"
Since when did AJAX enable drag & drop? Freakin' Menus even? Why, please tell me WHY people who apparently know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the underlying technology are allowed to talk about it? This AJAX crap is killing me!!!! There are too many PHBs out there thinking this is the next great thing and trying to integrate it into every application. Any why the fuck does this post have the coffee cup as if it pertains to Java? WHY??!!!!!!
How much did Julie Hanna Farris, founder of Scalix, a Linux-based, e-mail systems vendor pay for this /. ad? It obviously says nothing new about AJAX, is only aimed at PHB's, and yet for some reason Julie's company Scalix is the focus of the summary. Is it time to rename /. to Slashtroturfing.org?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Tiny url now has a preview feature so that you get a shot at seeing the final link before visiting. http://tinyurl.com/preview.php
You already had to download the browser, or install it from a CD. That's the point.
In addition to a browser, if people had downloaded something other then a web browser (like a java JVM) they wouldn't need to go through the trouble of downloading somethine else.
That's the point I'm trying to make. AJAX does require a download, it's just that it's the largest installed base out there.
But web browsers wern't designed to do this type of thing, and the hacks that have been added are still lightyears from what could be done in a DOS program, ferchrissakes!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Mr. Critical Guy, ;)
...). All I care about is the fact that we are now finally able to make server side calls whenever we want, and can update a piece of the page instead of redrawing everything.
I am sorry, I can't explain the buzz to be honest. I also can't explain why this posting actually made it on to slashdot as there isn't technical meat in it.
For some reason if you mention Ajax || Web 2.0 || Google || Microsoft || Apple || Linux, you are a sure thing right?
I think that the reason that the term Ajax took off, isn't due to the name itself (most people aren't fans due to the other million things that are out there) but it gave us one word to explain the concept.
Now, the concept itself is very fluffy isn't it. I personally don't subscribe to the technical view (that it has to be XHR and XML
This is the shift in thinking that is now making into the mainstream (even though we have been doing this in general for years with many techniques including XHR).
Cheers,
Dion
So the next time there's a story about the Linux kernel, it'll be in the MacOS category because Linux is an alternative to MacOS.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
And, most of the time, it's ad content.
Ajax apps like GMail can now degrade gracefully
Only true if by "degrade gracefully" you mean "write a separate version". That's like saying my C app is portable because I also have a Java version. Working around IE bugs is hard enough, but it's peanuts compared to supporting a whole new code base (which only 1% of the people are going to use).
Hey, look, I like Gmail and Google Maps and all that just as much as the next guy, but as someone who's done rich desktop application UI design with Windows and Linux toolkits, I can't really see AJAX as anything but a big hack.
UI toolkits are built to be event-driven, multi-threaded, and highly interactive. A lot of thought has gone into them, and modern OO languages really let you take advantage of the whole way of doing things (think C#/.NET or Python/GTK+, or C++/QT).
But AJAX is what? An XML message being tossed between server and client in an inline frame. What beefy programming language do we have to deal with that XML message and respond to it, produce our UI elements, etc? Oh yea, Javascript. Where do these applications live? Not within some virtual machine, not with the help of some powerful runtime, but within a *web browser*.
(I just think about the day when all the thought that has gone into making Operating Systems fast and flexible for multiple interactive applications is for naught because the only application anyone runs is IE/Firefox/Safari).
Isn't this the kind of stuff that makes you feel like we're always *regressing* into worse architectural designs, even as the applications get better? AJAX was a hack to squeeze interactivity into web applications. It definitely isn't elegant, and I'd be very wary of calling it a wonderful, powerful industry standard. It may become a standard, but it certainly didn't rise to prominence thanks to the elegance of its design. Javascript, DHTML, etc. aren't even solid standards, just ask Google who wrote three Gmaps versions: one for IE, one for Firefox, one for Safari.
What's funny is that for the next few years, everyone is gonna go bananas to produce AJAX applications instead of rich clients using mature UI toolkits. And it'll just become more and more entrenched--thousands of lines of Javascript spaghetti codes, all over the user's computer and the enterprise.
I like the apps produced by AJAX, but AJAX as a technology? Not that impressed. With all the work that has gone into UIs and UI toolkits in the last few years (especially great stuff like i18n and l10n for free, cross-platform native look and feel, performance, vector graphics, and on and on), it's a shame to see things go in this direction--UI by web browser hack--so rapidly. Alas, I guess that's "the industry!" Demand drives quote-unquote "innovation".
AJAX won't bring good keyboard accessible application, although that is mostly due to browsers limitations.
What do you mean by Net 2500 or VS 2200/2300?
a sig with any other name would be as witty
should have been a few years later on the Ideosphere claim that demand
for JavaScript programmers would overtake demand for Java
programmers.
Where were the digerati futurists on this?
Javascript has nothing to do with Java, other than sharing part of a name and some syntax.
You'd have thought a site for techies would know this...
It's official. Most of you are morons.
That sort of thing has been doable for about five years now. XHR makes it cleaner (*Ajax* clean? I crack me up!) than using, say, Java crappelts, or frames, or Flash. The big feature is that Mozilla and others finaly got hip to (gasp) a Microsoft technology that many developers have been using for years.
I personally don't subscribe to the technical view (that it has to be XHR and XMLWell, perhaps that helps explain why so many people find the term meaningless at best, and often quite confusing.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
I've recently been researching AJAX for some of my clients, and here are some articles on the topic to help jumpstart diving in if you are new to AJAX. 1) A good place to start is the SUN article on the topic ( http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/J2 EE/AJAX/ ) - It's rather surface, but a good place to start.
2) The IBM article feels more "state of the art" - they do a GREAT job of breaking down the pros-and-cons of the different AJAX-like architectures.
3) Diving deeper, if you are going the route of XML/XSLT - you must check out Sarissa which is A cross-browser wrapper for Javascript XML manipulation.
4) It's very easy to work with PHP or any other server-side language, lots of great artices on the topic.
Yes, I was horrified to be sitting here writing Javascript again - but my clients like it, its easy to secure, and one can do some fancy things with it.
Happy coding
Horns are really just a broken halo.
Since the other final-price frame isn't in another thread it can't poll for the data, and the catalog buy-this frame can't reliably write to the other frame. That is, frame.document isn't generally available.
So you still have to post the change and draw a new screen or you risk having the displayed total be wrong for a while.
There might be an Ajax hack to do this but I haven't seen it.
Of course, you can write to a "div" in the same frame right away, but it doesn't have the UI features of a separate frame.
I18N == Intergalacticization
It is possible to write such applications so they degrade gracefully, although it is almost inevitable that there is going to be some duplication of effort as some components are implemented in two places. GMail, however, is not a good example of that - it has two seperate versions, it doesn't degrade gracefully.
Javascript is fantastic - THE IMPLEMENTATION OF JAVASCRIPT on the other hand, on IE, is SHIT.
Dump IE. (boycott 7.0 people are saying)
Also, I think we should dump HTML for SiTeML, a new language we should design ground up to be specifically designed for the new CSS 3.0 - and for AJAX based applications, with a standardized DOM. Design based, with little features making it good for programmers (like a more extensible dom and class structure).
If we make the design 100% complete, and do not allow for inconsistencies, and web designers go for it, and write the imlementation for firefox (to render SiTeML pages) then IE will have to follow, or become obsolete.
There are too many HTML / DOM / JS / CSS hacks. Lets rip it down and start a new ground definition, a new 1.0, a new type of document, so our weak human minds are not always thinking about 'backwards compatibility'.
If you expect anyone with an older browser to HAVE an ftp client installed to access ftp (command line IS a client too) then you can expect someone to have an XHTML compatible browser to view XHTML pages, and fuck them if they don't.
There is nothing saying a browser can't run on 5 year old machines.
SiTeML, the future. Or at least until M$ has one last go at assfucking us all.
regards,
Tod
please type the word in this image: regards
random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I wonder, considering your comment, how many of those 2,567,899,110 *other* hottest languages are actually languages, and not groups of existing technologies working together.
AJAZ isn't a language, just like DHTML isn't a language either.
*AJAX
No, you just need RubyOnRails and you get full AJAX support without having to deal with javascript or request object or anything. Only Ruby, for 99% of the cases.
Additionally, it fits nice in its MVC architecture, and you keep all AJAX actions in a controller, where you can render back html to update a div, or return javascript code to be evaluated (which in 99% of the cases is simple code like Effect.disable(id) ). Elegant and clean.
old versions of IE (5.x) and some other browsers will get stuck on the try{}catch{} as it's only in new(er) versions of JS, you need to do something along these lines:
//IE //FF,NS and OP
if( window.ActiveXObject )
{
req = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");
}
else
if( window.XMLHttpRequest )
{
req = new XMLHttpRequest();
}
else
{
req = false;
}
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Actually, my biggest problem with Javascript was (is?) trying to understand all the little (or sometimes not-so-little) implementation differences, and write cross-browser script that didn't turn into zillions of checks:
That becomes a maintenance nightmare. Every few months a new browser version becomes available and must be tested and it's niggling quirks discovered and handled. This is not an insignificant task. Personally, I would rather be a content creator, not a browser beta tester for MS and Mozilla.The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Aren't you the same shmoo who grunts at me every time I say "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" ? What, were you sick? I missed you!
OpenLaszlo beats the pants off of Flex and its free (as in speech). Why anyone would bother with the whole AJAX kludge when Laszlo is around escapes me. The beauty of Laszlo's databinding architecture must be seen to be believed, not to mention the animation and UI capabilities.
It is also worth pointing out that Laszlo Systems is working on a DHTML renderer for Laszlo so it won't be dependent on the flash player.
There is a very active and helpful developer community and the documentation is very well done and complete (unlike Flex).
Anyway, my $.02
-Clay
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
Visual Studio .Net is the integrated development environment (IDE) for .Net applications. There are 3 versions available, VS.Net 2002, VS.Net 2003, and VS.Net 2005. The year is often shortened to 2k (2000) and the last digit (5). So "VS.Net 2k5" is the short hand way of typing "Visual Studio.Net 2005"
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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).
That's funny; Outlook Web Access works just fine for me on Firefox.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Now someone needs to come up with a monkey dance cartoon with that subject and put it up at a site like ajaxian. But seriously, deployment is what it always comes down. For years, I sat around doing my bit-twiddling in C++, ignoring HTML, CSS, Javascript, XUL and all the backend frameworks because I thought it was silly to do a "real" app in the browser. But one of my side interests has always been deployment and so inevitably I started looking into what can be done with DHTML/Ajax and friends once most modern browsers supported it.
Is it clunky working around all the browser incompatibility issues? Yes. Are your widgets limited? yeah(too bad SVG isn't supported fully in all browsers natively). But there are some interesting things possibilities.
Now obviously Microsoft doesn't want a richer web experience, except maybe for IE, but the more interesting thing is that it doesn't really bode well for the open source desktop either. How many extensions are you using in Firefox that you might normally use a KDE or Gnome applet for?
> See this? http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/AJAX:Getting_ Started
> it's a tutorial. In the AJAX LANGUAGE
From the top of the referenced page:
"AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML) is a newly coined term for two powerful browser features that have been around for years,"
All I can see on that page is JavaScript, sorry. There is no AJAX "language"
Insert angry GNU/ranting here, if that's what you want.