r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[AJAX] Web Development Using AJAX

Henrik
11-Apr-2006
[90x2]
it would be a plugin, but I'm not sure how much sense it makes other 
than a smaller DLL file
you need to embed it in a webpage somehow
Oldes
11-Apr-2006
[92]
Interesting can be, if you run serven in clients page:-))
Pekr
11-Apr-2006
[93]
server? yes, possible with rebol.
Oldes
11-Apr-2006
[94]
the netvibes site is nice, but the problem is still the same, - you 
have to do it in old way as well, if you want to make pages for more 
people then net-freaks
Pekr
11-Apr-2006
[95]
but still, dom interface is weak, no? otoh we don't need full rebol 
version of dom, js has one, so via do-browser we can call even dom, 
right? :-)
Henrik
11-Apr-2006
[96]
server-in-a-browser would be a piece of cake with rebol. just consider 
that you can output HTML code to the browser via DOM as well as View 
graphics
Pekr
11-Apr-2006
[97]
what browsers are ajax compatible? IE since 5.5? let's forget old 
browsers then ... ppl should upgrade, if they want something new 
...
Oldes
11-Apr-2006
[98]
via do-browser you can do everything - it just evaluates JS code
Pekr
11-Apr-2006
[99]
hmm, then we need that plug-in, gee :-)
Henrik
11-Apr-2006
[100]
yes, the plugin is going to become very important
Oldes
11-Apr-2006
[101x2]
Anyway, I'm giving ajax (or I don't know how to call it, because 
it's not ajax, it's just a httprequest) next try with this modified 
function:
	function getXMLHttpRequestObj(){
		var ajx;
		if(window.ActiveXObject) {
			if(_XML_ActiveX) {
				ajx = new ActiveXObject(_XML_ActiveX);
			} else {
				var versions = [
					"MSXML2.XMLHTTP",
					"Microsoft.XMLHTTP",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.7.0",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.6.0",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.5.0",
					"Msxml2.XMLHTTP.4.0",
					"MSXML2.XMLHTTP.3.0"
				];
				for (var i = 0; i < versions.length; i++) {
					try {
						ajx = new ActiveXObject(versions[i]);
						if (ajx) {
							var _XML_ActiveX = versions[i];
							break;
						}
					}
					catch (e) {}
				}
			}
		}
		if(!ajx && typeof XMLHttpRequest != undefined) {
			try {
				ajx = new XMLHttpRequest();
			}
			catch (e) {
				return null;
			}
		} return ajx;
	}
(with test, that if the httpReqeust object is not available, I have 
to use old style -all page reload:-)
Pekr
11-Apr-2006
[103]
don't you think we need new windowing system for browsers? I think 
that view layout is not good model anymore ... it opens new OS window 
... but that will be regarded being a popup .... we imo definitely 
need rebol own windowing system ...
Oldes
11-Apr-2006
[104x2]
(it looks that the "nice" site killed my firefox after playing a 
little bit with it:-) eating about 200MB of my memory:-)))
http://www.google.com/ig
Gabriele
11-Apr-2006
[106]
http://www.protopage.com/v2
Rebolek
11-Apr-2006
[107]
nice. reminds me of SWiS.
Pekr
11-Apr-2006
[108x2]
yes .... the bad part  is, that they will claim how cool it is, no 
matter that it was done before ...
hope we get full-featured plug-in one day ...
Maxim
11-Apr-2006
[110]
its nice, visually.
Chris
11-Apr-2006
[111]
Still seems like a step back from native windowing...
Maxim
11-Apr-2006
[112]
funny How I coded such a thing myself 5 years ago though (floating 
divs with title bar and internal scroll bars I guess its shadow effects 
make it worthy of a patent.  ;-)
Graham
13-Apr-2006
[113x4]
I found the flash demos on this site http://www.zimbra.com/very 
impressive.
Zimbra is a sort of exchange clone.
The client can recognise phone numbers and bring up Skype to dial 
numbers, recognises addresses and popups yahoo maps etc.
the browser is becoming a very decent platform for developing applications
Pekr
13-Apr-2006
[117]
it is not browser which is capable - other technologies are ... but 
you are right - browser is a platform - it is a container ... it 
is a VM of a kind - you don't need .NET or .JAVA - you need native 
browser, which "contains" other technologies ... now let's have REBOL 
in a browser, our .REBOL :-)
Geomol
13-Apr-2006
[118]
Having everything wrapped in HTML (or XML or whatever markup-language) 
is not a good solution. I hate using applications inside a browser, 
because they're always slooooow. Native application clients are much 
better. Think reblets!
Graham
13-Apr-2006
[119]
But if the reblets don't look as good as embedded html apps?
Henrik
13-Apr-2006
[120]
that's entirely up to the artist/coder doing the GUI
Graham
13-Apr-2006
[121]
Sadly there are not a lot of rebol coders who can create a great 
looking gui.
Henrik
13-Apr-2006
[122]
yes, I think the amount of actual artistry among Rebol coders is 
too small
Chris
13-Apr-2006
[123]
And then there's access -- being able to use Ajax apps without owning 
a computer...
Henrik
13-Apr-2006
[124]
which is why the rebol/plugin is going to be a very important marketing 
tool for rebol
[unknown: 9]
13-Apr-2006
[125x2]
the browser is becoming a very decent platform for developing applications

: )


Zimbra "looks" very good.  I have used it (in depth), it is not exactly 
what it appears.  But they do a very nice job.  They are in my top 
10 Issue Tracking systems.
Lastly, it is not exacly "AJAX" most of the cool UI you see is JAVA. 
(which in my mind is Rebol + Good browser blug-in supprt).
Henrik
13-Apr-2006
[127]
Flash is starting to catch up on the GUI part and they are much more 
light weight than Java, but I'm not sure how easy/hard they are to 
do
[unknown: 9]
13-Apr-2006
[128x2]
What they have been doing is moving this to AJAX bit by bit.  So 
it looks like thier old stuff, but functions about half as well.
Flash is very impressive:  http://threeminds.organic.com/2006/01/groowy_on_the_d.html


This is the best example I have seen of a Zimba like app in Flash 
(major backer is Mark Cuban).
Terry
15-Apr-2006
[130]
Yawn.
BrianW
21-Apr-2006
[131x2]
Well, Javascript maybe rather than Java, but I get the idea.
Some decisions I will never understand. Turining "LiveScript" into 
"JavaScript", spelling it "R-E-B-O-L" but calling it "rebel". Like 
there isn't enough confusion in the world today :)
Allen
22-Apr-2006
[133]
OK Bryan ;-)
[unknown: 9]
22-Apr-2006
[134x2]
I agree with Brian.  LiveScript was a better name, and reduced confusion. 
 I have never like Rebel, but really like the idea of Rebel.

There are so many exmaples of name space conflict where there does 
not need to be.


And on the topic of AJAX:	http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/04/21/ajax/index.php
You know how when something new comes along they give it a new word, 
and it really just does what the old thing did? 

For me this means we have to learn a new word, when in reality it 
is just the same thing. 


 AJAX is the "concept" that a browser can talk to the server and ask 
 for a little information, instead of loading the whole page again 
 and again and again! 


This is a Technology!?!  This is "all" that AJAX is, nothing more. 
 It is the "concept" that we are finally doing something the way 
it should have been done in the first place. 


I'm coming out with a new technology next year, I'm working with 
two doctors on it.  It is called SBYNH: 

Stop Banging Your Nuts with a Hammer. 


We expect quite a turn out.  We will have medical professionals on 
hand to explain the long term affects of failing to use SBYNH.
Maxim
22-Apr-2006
[136x2]
and obviously the surgery procedures already worked out to fix failed 
SBYNH  ;-)
(well, fixing is not the proper term I guess ;-)
[unknown: 9]
22-Apr-2006
[138x2]
In my first post about Rebel I meant to say "I never liked Rebol 
(the spelling), but like the idea behind the name.
Ruby is cute... (a little gem).