Skip to main content

I think AJAX...

is much better than reloading whole pages
27% (202 votes)
makes browser clients much richer
24% (178 votes)
is a compatibility nightmare waiting to happen
27% (201 votes)
is better than applets, how?
5% (40 votes)
was better when it was called DHTML
11% (83 votes)
Something else (please comment)
5% (36 votes)
Total votes: 740

Comments

AJAX

AJAX might make a browser client better, but still it remains a browser client. I wonder why there is such a hype around browser clients while Java clients are simpler to build to produce exatly that richness and more. ....and *please* do not come with deployment, that is not really an issue for Java clients, especially not in an enterprise environment.

AJAX

AJAX might make a browser client better, but still it remains a browser client. I wonder why there is such a hype around browser clients while Java clients are simpler to build to produce exatly that richness and more. ....and *please* do not come with deployment, that is not really an issue for Java clients, especially not in an enterprise environment.

I think AJAX...

will revolutionaize internet along with new XML technologies.. if it is included as a JavaScript Object with lot more features in W3C standards. This is what google is doing.. Changing the concept of Desktop to Network.. I think W3C should consider AJAX seriously.

I think AJAX...

Can be a very useful tool but is not a silver bullet (aka golden hammer).

I think AJAX...

...has it's place, but (like all fashionable buzz-words) will probably be done to death, in all the wrong places, till it gets a really bad name, and falls out of favour to another technology...

I think AJAX...

exactly, and that day can't happen soon enough ;) Would save a lot of people a lot of work redoing all the applications being forced into a technology that's not appropriate for them by managers.

Re: Not a standard

Some people have pointed out that AJAX is not a standard. This is correct, but several leading AJAX developers (Ben and Dion among them) and I strongly believe that AJAX should be hidden behind a component framework such as JSF. There is no reason why the page author should have to code ajax directly whene there are several web frameworks out there that can cleanly hide its complexities and incompatabilities. Ed

Re: Not a standard

Some people have pointed out that AJAX is not a standard. This is correct, but several leading AJAX developers (Ben and Dion among them) and I strongly believe that AJAX should be hidden behind a component framework such as JSF. There is no reason why the page author should have to code ajax directly whene there are several web frameworks out there that can cleanly hide its complexities and incompatabilities. Ed

Re: Not a standard

There are better ways to hide the complexity of AJAX than using JSF. backbase seems to be a very nice example of the abstraction your looking for, it doesn't even require a java based server.

Taylor

Not a standard

My main issue with AJAX is that is not a technincally a standard. Each browser implements XmlHttpRequest differently, have eneough differences in their DOM implemetations, and inconsistent event implementations that you'd be much better off using an Applet, Web Start App, or Flash.

Not a standard

Code to a Javascript "library" that supports multiple browsers. There are plenty of them about and the library can be updated without breaking your code. Pretty much all up-to-date JS-supporting browsers support a common subset of functionality including DOM level 1 or 2 and some kind of XmlHttpRequest that will allow you to do just about whatever you want.

About applets

Firstly, can you be sure your user base has the correct version of java installed or can be bothered to jump through hoops to install it? Secondly, there's an awful delay as the JVM loads up when you hit a page with applets on it. Thirdly, applets tend to look hideous because the people that create them are not designers. Fourthly, applets are confined to a portion of the page. AJAX apps can use the whole browser and scale with it.

About applets

Firstly, can you be sure your user base has the correct version of java installed or can be bothered to jump through hoops to install it? Secondly, there's an awful delay as the JVM loads up when you hit a page with applets on it. Thirdly, applets tend to look hideous because the people that create them are not designers. Fourthly, applets are confined to a portion of the page. AJAX apps can use the whole browser and scale with it.

About applets

"Firstly, can you be sure your user base has the correct version of java installed or can be bothered to jump through hoops to install it?" I think this is no longer valid. A couple of times per year, I have to install a new version of Flash Player when I hit a page that uses some new feature. People are obviously not concerned with waitnig for downloads anymore, otherwise there would be zero movie trailers being viewed. Besides, most computers purchased in the past 2 years contain a modern version of the JRE on it, so you aren't stuck with ancient applets anymore. Oh... did I mentioned that I, for one, actually had to install the Firefox browser... oddly enough it required a download AND install. Can you believe it?! ;-)

nothing new

There has been a great deal of talk about AJAX. However there is nothing new about AJAX. I first used a version of AJAX type technology with the original version of Microsoft’s ASP. Back in 1997 Microsoft used an Applet with JavaScript to make asynchronous calls to the server. 7+ years later we get around to standardizing the technique with XML protocol.

Missing option

"All of the above."

Seriously, I think every single one of those options rings true in some way.

(Not that Ajax is exactly better than applets, but it makes sense in some situations where applets don't.)

I think AJAX...

a step up on straight html / jsp, but will never match rich capabilities of applets

I think AJAX...

Exactly. It's a good step in the right direction, but doesn't quite give you everything you need.