[TYPO3-50-general] I can't see AJAX anywhere?

dan frost dan at danfrost.co.uk
Thu Jul 26 10:23:16 CEST 2007


I think I got distracted from my point.

Are you using AJAX? If yes: the ajax client needs to handle JS events 
(clicks, mouse overs etc), send requests and deal with the response. 
Prototype offers a nicer way of dealing with responses than xajax, 
meaning that the client can deal with its own logic.

If you're not using AJAX then never mind.




Robert Lemke wrote:
> Hi Dan an Elmar,
> 
> I fully agree with Elmar here: We want as few logic on the client side
> as possible. And that is not an outdated view - Martin Fowler and friends
> don't tire of preaching to make the presentation layer as dumb as possible.
> You can't rely on the client - that is not only true in the business
> world.
> 
> Because a JavaScript / AJAX driven backend is just another view, we don't
> want to deal with that as a developer – we better concentrate on the 
> domain.
> If you can speak of a trend, then it is letting the developer control the
> JavaScript from (in our case) PHP - "no JavaScript was harmed in developing
> this website" is a common sentence I read on webpages of AJAX frameworks.
> 
> With AJAX frameworks I'm referring to XAJAX, PAJAJ, Tigermouse, jPOP and 
> the
> like. And as Elmar said, you can't compare that with Prototype. That would
> be if you had to decide using either Apache or PHP - you probably need 
> both.
> 
> RoR even makes the JS DOM tree available as plain Ruby objects which you 
> can
> modify and then the framework takes care of altering the real JS objects
> as well. That is a clever approach I think.
> 
> So, for 5.0, we probably can't use a ready made solution on the server 
> side,
> because we want a clean, tight and userfriendly integration into our own
> MVC mechanism. But for the client side we have all options open. I 
> currently
> tend to use Mootools because it is very clean, stable and lightweight.
> But it should be easy to replace that with another solution later on.
> 
> Cheers,
> robert
> 
> Am 26.07.2007 um 02:36 schrieb Elmar Hinz:
> 
>> dan frost wrote:
>>
>>> This is from experience.
>>>
>>> We used xajax for approx 1 year across most of our projects and then
>>> started playing with Prototype. Of course, to use Prototype in PHP you
>>> need to build the server-side but the implementation on the client-side
>>> is more elegant in Prototype than Xajax.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid I take your comments about buzz words with a pinch of salt
>>> because of my above comment.
>>>
>>> Also, I add more salt because I can't believe you're suggesting not
>>> using client-side processing. Accessibility or not - what about the huge
>>> trends towards using Ajax and other client-side processing (see post on
>>> google gears).
>>>
>>> My suggestion:
>>> - prototype for Ajax. Easier and quicker to implement. Cross-browser
>>> event handling etc.
>>> - Simple, custom Ajax server.
>>>
>>> It's not a huge issue really. But I'm surprised at the out-dated
>>> comments about client-side coding..
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> dan]
>>>
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> the critic on client side coding isn't out-dated today and it will not be
>> outdated 10 years ahead. The problem is a principle one. Clientside 
>> coding
>> simply requires a reliable monoculture of clients, that isn't developing
>> any more. DOM brought a lot of convergence, but the amount of web clients
>> is growing again and new devices are arriving.
>>
>> Think of forms in PDF. Think of flash. Think of FO. Think of iPhono as 
>> the
>> first messanger of the range of future web devices. To plan V5 for a
>> monoculture of web clients is IMHO not very foresighting. I would rather
>> tend ot call it negligent.
>>
>> Certainly. Client-side coding is lazy doing. It's economic for 
>> projects for
>> your small customers that are content, if the homepage can be accessed by
>> 95% percent of the visitors. But hey, that's not the target group of 
>> TYPO3.
>> Our customers request 99.99.% reliability.
>>
>> I am not against the use of prototype and friends. Javascript 
>> libraries are
>> nice add-ons today. They offer useful functionality for closed areas and
>> for specialized target groups. But by principle they can't serve as the
>> fundament for large, long term solutions. Server side logic will 
>> always be
>> the safe way. It will stay as the fundament that can't be dropt.
>>
>> xajax is an early, and meanwhile very old tool. But it's not 
>> impossible to
>> design easy server side ajax. The road to go for V5 is to make server 
>> side
>> ajax libraries as simple to use as client side javascript. There 
>> shouldn't
>> be additional work at all. I imagine serverside ajax rather as a part of
>> the 5V object library. A technoloty that works transparently for the
>> developes and users, without additional efforts to make.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Elmar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TYPO3-project-5_0-general mailing list
>> TYPO3-project-5_0-general at lists.netfielders.de
>> http://lists.netfielders.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/typo3-project-5_0-general 
>>
> 
> 
> 
> robert


More information about the TYPO3-project-5_0-general mailing list