Javascript on the client as an alternative to Perl/PHP/Python on theserver

On Jun 1, 4:53 am, Dan Rumney <dancr... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

I've been thinking about an alternative approach, whereby the page is
built on the fly with various AJAX calls to the server to pull in the
necessary components. In the extreme, I could visualize doing away
with Perl generated pages entirely. All pages are HTML, with AJAX
calls to the server. The responding scripts would return JSON or XML
data which would be interpreted on the client side as required.

Hi Dan,

I also started playing with this idea some months back. i wrote a
post on this subject: http://schettino72.wordpress.com/200...script-widget/

I am successfully using this approach to design js widgets.

If a webpage is created on the client with multiple requests back to
the server for content, then that webpage can't be saved for later
offline viewing.

Note that you dont need necessarilly to get your json(or whatever
data) from an AJAX call. I am passing the initial data data on div
with display set to none. this way it is possible to save the page and
see the content again offline.
of course this would work only if the data is not modified
dynamically. not sure your requirements ... but thats an idea.

cheers,
Eduardo

schettino72 wrote:

On Jun 1, 4:53 am, Dan Rumney <dancr... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
I've been thinking about an alternative approach, whereby the page is
built on the fly with various AJAX calls to the server to pull in the
necessary components. In the extreme, I could visualize doing away
with Perl generated pages entirely. All pages are HTML, with AJAX
calls to the server. The responding scripts would return JSON or XML
data which would be interpreted on the client side as required.

[...]
I also started playing with this idea some months back. i wrote a
post on this subject: http://schettino72.wordpress.com/200...script-widget/

The script is junk, or as you would put it, bullshit, as it does not degrade
gracefully. (I wonder why people who want to build widgets don't start with
something obvious and simple, say, form controls.)

I am successfully using this approach to design js widgets.

Self-delusion comes in small packages.

Next, please.


PointedEars

P.S.
Since Dan is a Google Groups user and does not post with only e-mail address
in the From header, he must have subscribed to this newsgroup (as you
probably have). Therefore I doubt he appreciates your Cc:ing him unsolicited.
--
Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$8300dec7 (AT) news (DOT) demon.co.uk>

On Jun 16, 2:14 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE... (AT) web (DOT) de>
wrote:

[...]
I also started playing with this idea some months back. i wrote a
post on this subject:http://schettino72.wordpress.com/200...-javascript-wi...

The script is junk, or as you would put it, bullshit, as it does not degrade
gracefully. [...]

hehehe. good one.
I guess you didnt get it. It is clear to everybody in this thread that
we are not discussing about accessibility. remember?

On Jun 1, 6:31 pm, Dan Rumney <danrum... (AT) warpmail (DOT) net> wrote:

VK, PointedEars,
Please don't hijack this thread to bicker about accessibility.

But since we are on the subject... Graceful degradation is not the
only way to deal with accessibility. You could have 2 versions of your
page one for the folks that have javascript and other for who doesnt.
So when a user that doesnt have javascript comes to your page, he is
redirect to another version of the page that does not require
javascript. I am not sure but it seems that gmail uses this aproach -
they have 2 versions of gmail, not one with graceful degradation.
Does it seem doable to you?

(I wonder why people who want to build widgets don't start with
something obvious and simple, say, form controls.)
Thats easy. It is because people that want to build widgets dont want

to build *any* widget. If they need a "Super XYZ" they cant just build
form controls widget. understand?

Next, please.

Not so fast
Lets assume that accessibility for the folks with no javascript is
always necesasry...
Now the question is: What is better? Graceful degradation or 2
versions (javascript/no javascript) of your page?
Well, it is impossible to give a definitive answer. for something
obvious and simple I guess graceful degradation will always be easier.
But for complex widgets I am not sure.

Let's have a constructive discussion. You could start implementing a
basic album viewer with graceful degradation. It can be a crap, like
mine, the point is just to understand the advantages and disavantages
of each approach...

PointedEars

P.S.
Since Dan is a Google Groups user and does not post with only e-mail address
in the From header, he must have subscribed to this newsgroup (as you
probably have). Therefore I doubt he appreciates your Cc:ing him unsolicited.

I guess most peole, like me, are just casual readers that dont follow
or reply every single mail in high traffic email list like this. Since
I am coming late to this discussion I though Dan might not be
following it anymore. Since he was asking for feedbackI would not
classify it as "unsolicited". Anyway,Dan I apologize if I've caused
any incovenient to you.

cheers,
Eduardo

schettino72 wrote:

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
[...]
I also started playing with this idea some months back. i wrote a
post on this subject:http://schettino72.wordpress.com/200...-javascript-wi...
The script is junk, or as you would put it, bullshit, as it does not degrade
gracefully. [...]

hehehe. good one.
I guess you didnt get it. It is clear to everybody in this thread that
we are not discussing about accessibility. remember?

On Jun 1, 6:31 pm, Dan Rumney <danrum... (AT) warpmail (DOT) net> wrote:
VK, PointedEars,
Please don't hijack this thread to bicker about accessibility.

You should have read my reply to that, then you would not have needed
to make this sideshow.

This isn't e-mail, BTW.


PointedEars
--
Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on
a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web,
when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another
computer, another word processor, or another network. -- Tim Berners-Lee

On Jun 15, 11:26 am, schettino72 <schettin... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Jun 1, 4:53 am, Dan Rumney <dancr... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

[snip]

I also started playing with this idea some months back. i wrote a
post on this subject:http://schettino72.wordpress.com/200...-javascript-wi...

[snip]

Those photos are cool. What is that?

Note that you dont need necessarilly to get your json(or whatever
data) from an AJAX call. I am passing the initial data data on div
with display set to none. this way it is possible to save the page and
see the content again offline.
of course this would work only if the data is not modified
dynamically. not sure your requirements ... but thats an idea.

If you're going to do that, then make a list of links.

<ul>
<li><a href="hens.jpg" title="desc o hens">hens</a></li>
</ul>

I did that for Y! about 3.5 years ago. After I made that
functionality, the producer told me that they were "going with a popup
and using a third party slideshow".

I got the images with 90's style Ajax - new Image(). I also used fade
effect for transitioning one to the next. All following the long-
forgotten LSM (Layered, Semantic Markup).

cheers,
Eduardo