Slashdot Mirror
COWS Ajax - Ajax Evolved
nuttzy writes, "COWS Ajax takes over where Ajax leaves off. The web has gone through a great period of experimentation and there is now a dizzying array of frameworks, add-ons, howtos, and books. The common drawback these Ajax aids all fail to overcome is that, even with aids, apps take a long time to create and debug. Many times someone has already created a great tool and you'd really just rather use theirs instead of reinventing it (especially if it's a Google, Yahoo, or other trusted player). Wouldn't it be great to drop in a single line of code to gain a huge amount of functionality that frees you for something else? You can't do that with Ajax, but you can with COWS (Changeable Origin Web Services) Ajax. Now highly interactive third party services like SpellingCow are possible."
nt
"...personality goes a long way."
Opps! I guess I need a Mulligan... I meant to link to an introductory article [sourceforge] I had written. BTW, this comment was spell checked as I type with the SpellingCow favelet! -Nuttzy
Now the web will really mooooove forwards!
Sounds good. Developers should milk it for all its worth.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
But if a dev in my team would ask this to implement I would ask a few questions:
- Does it work if the embedded page is offline?
- Does it slow down if the embedded page is under heavy load from somebody else?
- Does it break if some standard/lib/implementation/EULA changes?
- Can we customize it to our GUI?
- In the example given, how does it play with browserspellcheckers like the one coming in FF2.0?
- Why are we paying you if all you do is reuse thirdparty code wich doesnt belong to the company?
You get the idea. Not saying its a bad idea but I have my concerns and so would a lot of managers/devs. At least the ones I have the pleasure to work with.
This will be easier to assess when we know more: would the team behind this care to write an article for Dion Hinchcliffe's AJAXWorld Magazine? He can be easily reached, just Google him.
And there I was, thinking that the common drawback was the lack of accessibility for disabled people and those of us who like to use links or the back button...
Great concept, but unless the server hosting the script has enough bandwidth and CPU to handle the requests or the the embedded script will never run. This will always be the fatal flaw in concepts like this.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
I want to make the obligatory cow jokes, but none come to mind. This looks interesting to me because my previous attempts at AJAX have ended in frustration. I'm not a super web code slinger, so anything that automates the process would be welcome.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
Next time you release an API, don't tell us "Instead of sorting through the techno-babble, let's just say [whatever]." This phrase immediately engages my bullshit sensors. You've apparently got a nice wrapper around the cross-site problems, just say that. Anyone who understands will be interested, anyone who doesn't won't care either way.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Looks like a shameless self promotion of some ad-based revenue generating web service. There's nothing actually new here, and no reason to ever remember COWS as a buzz word. Move along
The Widget mechanism in TurboGears is intended to address the issue of reuse of 3rd-party AJAX code. How does this differ?
Welcome our new Web 3.0 overlords! :P
You have two cows. They eat AJAX and die.
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
From the spell checker:
That's so very AJAX.
It really is asking for trouble, once you have third party javascript on your site you are
basically at the mercy of whoever wrote that javascript.
They can do nice stuff, and not so nice stuff with your end users (popups, form content
hijacking and so on).
And possibly lots of stuff that I have not even thought of. Also, they're pretty much
in control of the timing on your site, some browsers do not display the page until all
java script has loaded and if you are loading it from a remote server then you are
basically as slow as that server.
If we become used to loading random pieces of code from 3rd parties and injecting it into legitimate web pages, how long will it be before someone skeaks in a nice password sniffer or some such? I can already envision it: "This favelet makes logging into your bank so much easier" yeah right *for them*.
Besides, this stuff does not support Opera well.
Global warming is a cube.
Last time I tried that, I was left writing ASCII text files.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? I implemented a autocomplete search text box in only a few minutes using RoR. It really is that simple. It has a rich interface to create all sorts of ajax effects, useful ones that reduce traffic to/from the server.
Also, debugging is a breeze with the Firebug plugin for firefox; you can see exactly what is getting sent to the server and what is returned.
Moooove along, nothing to see here. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
No. No more insecure buggy stuff. Insecure. Bandwith intensive. Lame. Just say no.
This looks like a neat concept, but sort of seems like a hack around the existing security model. Frankly, I'm of two minds. On one hand, I like the idea of being able to tie together multiple hosted javascripts from other parties without having to install and configure them on my server. (plug - I mentioned this idea in an AJAX discussion on http://webdevradio.com/ a couple months ago). On the other hand, 'same-origin' policy exists for a reason (not that I agree with it) and it seems like relying on a hack like this is weak, in that if it becomes popular, it'll just be patched as a 'security hole' in future browser updates.
creation science book
That does it for me, 0.1% of my visitors won't be able to use it. Screw it, it's 100% or nothing! Oh wait, nothing works it 100% of browsers. Hmm, back to chisels and slabs of rock I guess.
You want to explain how their COW favelt works?
Does it DL the spellchecker to your computer?
Does it send your text out to their servers?
How's it do the magic?
Excellent. So you've finally perfected producing something from nothing? Brilliant, my man! Although with such a discovery you'd think you could do better than a spell check.
the echo2 library is an Ajax library which makes web application development as easy as desktop application development; it is an all-Java framework with no need to write even one line of XML/HTML/JSP/other. You can find it here:
http://www.nextapp.com/platform/echo2/echo/
Having recently re-written from scratch a very large project with two or more PHP developers and myself as the only front-end designer, I've found Ajax to be the fastest way to develop web apps for in-house use. If you write a spec for data I/O, then follow it exactly, the front end can be developed without the back end using sample data. The back end can be developed without the front end, since simulated posts/gets can be done to verify that the XML (or JSON or text or whatever) is valid. That means that I can make a front end, even if my PHP guy is working on something else, or my PHP guy can make a back end while I'm working on another project. The only down side is that if a change is made on the spec it has to be communicated and accounted for by everyone involved. So far, that hasn't been a problem.
Maybe it is a lack of specialization for the poster. Having two specialized developers (front-end and back-end) seems to speed things along just fine.
SpellingCows doesn't work in Safari...
Sounds like just a toolkit to me. One implementation among many. A simple Ajax implementation isn't even 20 lines of code client side, and then whatever server side code is needed to perform the necessary functions.
I find it ironic that their first example of COWS Ajax is a spell checker, which my Firefox already has built-in, client side, for ANY form field on ANY website.
Ouch. Adding a script tag dynamically is old hat in Ajax. See the DOM Based On-Demand Javascript pattern.
n g
In fact, there are a number of project under way that use dynamic script injection to emulate cross-domain XHR. See http://ajaxian.com/archives/jsonp-json-with-paddi
But worse yet, the argument that developing web applications with Ajax is hard is a straw man. Imagine you had to design a desktop GUI by twiddling with the screen bits directly or, worse yet, implementing application logic in the graphics controller. Blech!
That's the situation with Ajax and webapps right now: writing code in the wrong places and at the wrong level of abstraction.
If you want to simplify how you write webapps using Ajax, try a server side framework like Echo2 or ZK. These allow you to write webapps much like a desktop GUI while working in only one language context -- Java on the Server side.
It would not be better to use the browser to show only HTML, extend HTML document oriented tags with application oriented tags, SVG and use a protocol designed for applications not one for download documents? A protocol like X11 but with HTML, DOM nodes and DOM modifications. A stateful protocol without cookies, binary, designed for minimizing the amount of data traffic needed between server and client. The server sends HTML pages and DOM modifications to the client/browser at any moment and the cliente/browser shows the HTML, make the DOM modifications and sends function execution request to the server with user input. Just some ideas
We're looking at the worst kind of "copy and paste coding" here: the kind that can change at any time in the future. If you can't write a spellchecker, and you can't copy one from someplace else, you're going to look mighty stupid when the cow-speller site goes down, and you can't fix it.
Seriously, by doing this, I'm not only trusting this bovine-fixated individual to not only (a) never change his API, (b) always be up, (c) never do evil things with my data, but also (d) actively prevent evil things from being done with my data.
Consider for a moment that you write an email client that "leverages" this technology. In this situation, not only are you handing your logs, you're also potentially passing your customer's email and passwords to this cow-speller.
Bad fucking idea...
So, some unscrupulous individual hijacks spellingcow.com and now everyone who links to the script is at their mercy. uhh
I'm sorry, but it hurts to see this useless ugly framework /.'ted over a deserving project like jQuery!?! There already exist many similar and more elegant, mature, and well tested "web services".
j s
And to call;
http://cows-ajax.sourceforge.net/includes/sc_ayt.
a web service is outlandish. I give the 34k above include an F minus. The dict should be a "web service" & remain on server. !XSS
Er Galvão Abbott - IT Consultant and Developer
'especially if it's a Google, Yahoo, or other trusted player.'
Just make sure you unplug your microphone first.
Having the motto 'Do no evil' makes me sure they won't do anything I wouldn't want after listening to my conversation. I know how seriously employees take their mottos, and wouldn't it be evil, to some, not to not take an opportunity to increase investors returns.
!sig
everyone delete your copies of prototype.
Your argument that "omg, the 3rd party tools can do whatever they want" also applies to any code you use. It's made even more [fill-in-your-own-derogatory-adjective] because it's pretty easy to find any naughtiness on the part of javascript code.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
To be able to spell check through AJAX, wouldn't you need to send every word back to their servers as they return and tell you which one's to highlight and which words to use?
Given that, it's rather scary where I'd want to use this spellchecker on. I would never use spellchecker if my document was being sent from Word back to the Office group's spell checking server. Some things like these a crucial to be on the client side.
HD Trailers
"The unobtrusive nature of the SpellingCow quitely improves spelling"
Not so great for grammar.
I'm `quitely` sure of it!
ROFL, Safari is not that uncomplient that it should not work, IMHO.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
here
I hate this AJAX shit... it has taken useability back 20 years.
This article is not very earth-shattering, but is a great advertisement for COWS Ajax.
The government can't save you.
The SpellingCow demo doesn't seem to work in Safari. Too bad. I wonder if that's because Apple's built in spell check interferes with it? I tried turning Apple's off, but it still doesn't seem to work. Bummer.
you fuckers i wanted a troll mod.....
If you really want too know what it is all about check http://cows-ajax.sourceforge.net/. From that domain, "Instead of each site owner making their own tools, now a single author can make and distribute a cool tool or service that is easily installed on countless sites with the simple addition of one or two lines of code." It's really for lazy webmasters who want ajax gadgets and gizmos with as little actual ajax as possible. This is done by linking to an external site. You still have to learn the COWS API, but come on. If I wanted to do something with my site, I'd learn how and do it myself. That way I would not be requiring an outside server. I'm sure that's why XmlHttpRequest has the same origin limitation on it. It would force you to create your own applications with your own data. It would force a webmaster to learn.
Funny createSig(Witty remark, Odd reference)
{
return (Funny)remark + (Funny)reference;
}
If you really want too know what it is all about check http://cows-ajax.sourceforge.net/. From that domain, "Instead of each site owner making their own tools, now a single author can make and distribute a cool tool or service that is easily installed on countless sites with the simple addition of one or two lines of code." It's really for lazy webmasters who want ajax gadgets and gizmos with as little actual ajax as possible. This is done by linking to an external site. You still have to learn the COWS API, but come on. If I wanted to do something with my site, I'd learn how and do it myself. That way I would not be requiring an outside server. I'm sure that's why XmlHttpRequest has the same origin limitation on it. It would force you to create your own applications with your own data. It would force a webmaster to learn.
Funny createSig(Witty remark, Odd reference)
{
return (Funny)remark + (Funny)reference;
}
Looks like SpellingCow was lifted from another project without attribution (http://me.eae.net/archive/2006/09/04/spellingcow/ ). This whole post/project smells fishy.
COWS Ajax takes over where Ajax leaves off.
So they got upto Web 3.0? That was quick!
... is in full steeeereo!
That is all.
Pig/Ajax is the latest in technology. PIG stands for Pig is gruesome Ajax, as in Gnu/Linux.
With Pig/Ajax you can orchestrate world-class models, enabling scalable relationships with holistic schemas that facilitate front-end applications. Pig/Ajax grow dynamic infomediaries syndicating B2B relationships between synergistic partnerships, productizing out-of-the-box vortals.
Pig/Ajax, put simply, expedite global functionalities incubating visionary mindshare in your website!
Give it a try! http://devel.pigajax.org/
Odd that a page advertising a spell-checker would say that it "quitely improves spelling."
When I go to the COWS demo page and click on the button to activate the spell checker, it politely craps out with the err msg "window.launch_spellingcow is not a function"
Firefox 1.5.0.6 on XP Pro
sig has been sent away for a few small repairs...
Or, you could use Opera, and get WhatWG "standards", that allow the web server to push to the clients, instead of having the clients regularly request stuff from the server, and just clean up that way. Much better.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Try Wt, its called the "Qt" of the web. It even uses signal and slots for event handling! Never has programming complex and highly-interactive web applications been this easier with this library. It is a C++ library and allows you to build high-performance AJAX web apps without ever writing a line of HTML, Javascript, XML, or even learning XmlHTTP. The library takes care of these complexities the same way Qt hides Xt/Xlib or Win32 primitives from the developer.
You may like Wt if you think programming web applications should be done in a straightforward manner like in normal desktop applications and not be _unecessarily_ complex with stupid buzzwords sprinkled here and there.
Check out this link for yourself.
http://me.eae.net/archive/2006/09/04/spellingcow/
It's by the guy who wrote the code which they stole.
These are the worst kind of programmers, if you can even call them that.
A new technology which allows developers to just pull together complete applications from pre-fabricated blocks. Where have I heard this before a million times? Can't remember, because all those others stopped being relevant years ago. Why would this be any different?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Sure it did. Look how hard gmail sucks.
"I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
Is it meant to be a dynamic full featured rendering engine? Maybe it is, but AJAX should clean itself up from the kind of code that increases rendering time. Did anyone try using firefox's extensions on a slow linux box? Or even on Windows, I often have to start FF in safe mode just to get a clean start.
the famous google analytics also stuffs 18kb of Javascript crap to the client's computer (doesn't bother bandwidth on target site though), and forces a cookie rendering, all this done in client-side javascript on every single visited page. They got away with it because of nice free reports and GOOG's umbrella
cut this signatures madness. stop reading them now!
Um..it's only a pain if you insist on writing all your own code. Everyone is in the AJAX game these days..www.devexpress.com, www.telerik.com. Drag and drop easy, especially the Telerik control - ajax anything. Course those are all .NET libraries, but I'm assuming you linux-zealots have some sort of matching open source. Or maybe not? Is that why this article is so exciting for you? Is the ol' php just not cutting it? *grin*
Seriously, anyone hand coding something when they could be getting the job done is a play-programmer.
http://buttercup.spellingcow.com/spell/scayt
© 2004-2006 SpellingCow Software - All rights reserved. This is not free software.
What was the point again.
Aside from GMail, here are some Ajax sites that are MORE usable thanks to Ajax: * http://maps.google.com/ * http://www.meebo.com/ * http://www.kayak.com/ * http://www.writely.com/
Karma: Excellent (fuck, even in the future moderation doesn't work!)
The demo did not work on my PC either, with Firefox, latest release (v1.5.0.6) running on WinXP SP2.
Kayak may well have passed the test, writely requires registration but we both know it doesn't work anyway! 1/4 ajax masterpieces is actually a functional website, with success rates like that I wonder why this ajax thing didn't take off when we used to call it DHTML?
>but not for us, programmers. We code. There isn't such a thing as
;)
>"something else" for us, but hey, thanks for your concern =P
Which is why I do all my data access code in assembler
http://ajaxian.com/archives/slashdot-having-cows-o ver-ajax
Are you people nuts?
ignore
Now us supervillians can turn the server into an anonymous proxy server. AWESOME!