| |
|
Is AJAX worth adopting? |
|
|
|
Written by Harshad Oak
|
|
Apr 13, 2005 at 10:50 PM |
|
Page 2 of 2 |
Comment by Noname on 2005-06-13 10:16:37
Only a version ago Opera couldnt use AJAX ~ no XMLHTTP support. Then there are theolder versions of all the other browsers, and the text-only browsers - all of which have varying support, if any at all for javascript and XMLHTTP ... I design for standards-compliance, usability and simplicity (for maintainance, readiblity, etc) - AJAX provide lots of wonderful things, but not on a wide enough scale. You cannot always design for the lowest-common denominator (like me), but what has really shitted me since I ever started using the internet back in the early 90's was the 'only supports IE', 'only supports Netscape', 'view in 1024x768+', etc etc ~ dont get me started on flash sites and their awful precursors - sites made entirely in imagemaps.
*bitchmoan
~ MaryMary
|
Comment by johno on 2005-06-29 03:23:42
I was curious as to how Backbase was able too meet their claim that they are "Cross-browser" so I decided to take a peek at the technology. My conclusion is that Backbase is basically a just a hack that generates javascript a custom tag language. To get a feel for just how fragile this "platform" is, one only needs to peek at the browser identification logic in the back ase code, here's a taste:
function L(){
var Fd=navigator;
var Fe=Fd.appVersion;
var Ff=Fd.userAgent.toLowerCase();
this.DOM=(document.getElementById&&document.createElement);
this.navigator=navigator;
this.appVersion=Fd.appVersion;
this.userAgent=Fd.userAgent.toLowerCase();
this.ie=(Ff.indexOf('msie')!=-1)?true:false;
this.ie4=(document.all&&!document.getElementById)?true:false;
this.ie4up=(document.all)?true:false;
this.ie5=(Ff.indexOf('msie 5.0')!=-1)?true:false;
this.ie55=(Ff.indexOf('msie 5.5')!=-1)?true:false;
this.ie6=(Ff.indexOf('msie 6.0')!=-1)?true:false;
this.ns=(Fd.appName.indexOf('Netscape')!=-1)?true:false;
this.ns4=(this.ns&&Fe.indexOf("4.")!=-1)?true:false;
this.ns6=(this.ns&&document.getElementById)?true:false;
this.ns60=(this.ns6&&navigator.userAgent.indexOf('6.0')!=-1)?true:false;
this.ns61=(this.ns6&&navigator.userAgent.indexOf('6.1')!=-1)?true:false;
this.ns7=(this.ns6&&navigator.userAgent.indexOf('7')!=-1)?true:false;
this.moz=(Ff.indexOf("mozilla")!=-1&&Ff.indexOf("gecko")!=-1&&Ff.indexOf("netscape6")==-1)?true:false;
this.opera=(Ff.indexOf('opera')!=-1)?true:false;
this.mac=(Fd.platform.toLowerCase().indexOf('mac')!=-1)?true:false;
this.mac=false;
this.xwin=(Fe.indexOf("X11")>0)?true:false;
this.compatible=this.DOM&&!(this.mac&&this.ie);
this.compatible=true;
return this;
}
Also, took a look at the online code sample at Backbase, and unless I'm missing something, the language makes use of XPath in an ass-backwards and fragile way... that is it is used to set values within the HTML presentation tags. The results is that one change to the presentation structure and all the XPaths break. XPath was intended to be used with validated XML structures, not unstructured HTML. This seems to me a very bad idea that will create a whole new generation of problems for developers. In fact, I get the feeling that the folks at Backbase are more intent on hiding the messiness and platform issues inherent in AJAX than actually solving any problems for developers or creating a development environment that makes any sense. |
Comment by Noname on 2005-07-01 05:33:33
Outdated Article already. |
Comment by jepc on 2005-07-02 20:45:51
John,
I don't see how the solid browser detection code that is embedded in the Backbase engine makes Backbase a fragile platform. Developers working with Backbase can simply use our tags, and the Backbase engine ensures that they will work the same in all browsers.
Regarding usage of XPath: all targeting languages working with HTML have the same problem, whether you use the DOM or CSS selectors, they're all dependent on the structure of the HTML document. The benefit of XPath is that it's much more powerful, and most people using Backbase feel that our XPath implementation is one of the strengths of the platform.
In addition, developers can create their own custom Backbase tags, that are more semantically rich than HTML tags. You could even create your own XML document format, completely forgoing any HTML. An example is the b:window tag. Behind the scenes, these tags are of course translated to HTML, otherwise the browser wouldn't understand it.
Jep Castelein, Backbase |
Comment by Sabin A.K on 2006-04-12 02:09:12
Wont it be too good if you deliver the out come in a much faster way for the user in a simple way? Wont he be satisfied enough to stay long in your pages? Cant hassle free pages bring back your old visitors to the site? Then, running with the traditional methods is a pitty, i say. Ajax is the texhnology of tomorrow. Lets have an eye on it.. :grin |
|
|
|
|
Home | 
