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."
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
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.
So we should ditch Javascript, but keep Asynchronous Javascript And XML? Isn't that like dumping gas-powered engines but keeping gas-powered cars?
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."
The .NET alternative, which comes as a part of .NET 2.0/Visual Studio 2005, is Atlas.
Here's an overview.
Exactly. We need a better engine.
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.
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.
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 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. :-)
Currently hooked on AMP
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
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
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.
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.
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.
I keep seeing comments to the effect of "Java could do this!", and I'm going to pick on yours :)
See, Java *could* do this. Sure. I'll give you that. In fact, most people until recently HAD a JVM in their browser. Java applets should have taken over the world.
Why didn't they? Why is AJAX getting all the press Java should have gotten?
Me, I simply look at 2 things: gmail, and Google Maps. They both work, work well, and work better than anything else. Apparently millions of people agree with me, just look at the buzz around them. Are we all brainwashed by Google? Could these have been done as a Java applet? Maybe.
The fact is, they WEREN'T. Or if they were, no one used them. The way I see it, AJAX is the end all and be all (for now) because it WORKS. Maybe Java is just too slow (and here come a dozen posts claiming it's not). Maybe the wait time to load a JVM into memory, plus download an applet is too long. I don't know why Java hasn't been used, but it's not like no one's thought of it before.
I get the hype, myself. It means that I can sit at virtually any computer, type a URL, and BAM! Instant application. I've yet to see another technology that works this well.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
I agree that both models are necessary. You wouldn't want to lay out text with a box model, but you wouldn't typically want to lay out a form or list with a freeform layout, either. The element was a decent compromise, for a while, but its limitations are many, and it confuses programs that expect tables be used for data rather than layout. CSS is the recommended replacement, but omits the most useful part of the element, arranging rows and columns of arbitrary elements, while failing to add the metainformation that would allow screen-readers and the like to quickly find the content of the page.
You say that we're "trying to force documents to be applications", and I agree. However, with HTML we're also trying to force applications to become documents. We need access to both layout models, because the Web contains both documents and applications. XUL provides this. For example, the XUL menus in the FireFox "chrome" are freeform, and the main part of the box layout is a container for freeform HTML, while the rest of the chrome follows a box model.
Even "document" pages usually contain some "application" elements; navigation buttons, or a search box, for example. The page should be treated as an application containing content, and not forced to hold both the framework and the content in one file, with the same layout model.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
I agree with you. From a pragmatic point of view, AJAX is something that just works. Java can do many of the same things, but I always hated when websites use java in their pages. The load time is really annoying. I always sit there wondering what's chewing up my CPU cycles, then I see some cheesy javascript counter at the bottom of the page.
Google maps is such a great example. You go there, it works, and it's a great interface. It's not as nice as google earth, but I don't want a client/server map app. I don't want to go to a public computer, work computer, friend's computer (etc) and say "I wish I had that app on this computer". I just go to the web application, do what I need to, and close it.
With the huge focus on web applications, I believe this is just the start of a trend. We should be seeing some web application-specific API's popping up among browsers. Remember when mozilla was an application platform, not just an internet browser? That was the justification (IIRC) for XUL instead of native UI's; mozilla was going to be an app platform that everyone could utilize. Instead of XUL and mozilla specific, now we have AJAX that's cross platform.
Yes, we had IFRAMES. Yes, we had Java (and flash, for that matter). But instead of "this is no good, we could already do this", my thought is "Yeah! Almost all of the browsers AGREED on something that we actually need, and made things just a bit easier in a way that actually makes sense! A miracle!".
Plus, this should kill off old browsers in a way that XHTML/css never could. For that alone, thank you.