AJAX

ec2-3-143-244-83.us-east-2.compute.amazonaws.com | ToothyWiki | RecentChanges | Login | Webcomic

<BadRussianAccent>Dispatch War-Rocket AJAX to bring back his body!</BadRussianAccent>

We call it Jiff. Well, now we're supposed to call it Cif. But we don't, because rebranding is wrong. If they insisted on trying to use the American name, we'd probably call it OpalFruits?. --Vitenka

Alternatively, Asynchronous Javascript and XML

: Also known as "Finally, after a decade, a reason to enable EvilScript" --Vitenka (Still not enabling it, though.)

Examples include [Google Maps], ...

... or not. --Vitenka

Sorry, don't understand. Are you saying Google Maps isn't an example of AJAX or isn't a reason to enable javascript? I'm guessing the second, but then, from what little I know of your browsing habits I'm surprised that you view AJAX as a reason to enable javascript at all. --K

AJAX is, in theory, a reason to enable JavaScript. It's something useful that you can do with it. But the only actual existing useful use of it is that map thing, so we're back to 'in theory, JavaScript could be used for good' and the JavaScript stays off. --Vitenka

Gmail isn't bad, either ;). --Angoel

Gmail works with javascript disabled. --Vitenka

: Umm, that's part of the point. If it didn't, and required JavaScript, you'd be screaming blue murder :) --K
: Hardly. I'd just be ignoring it. --Vitenka (at gmail.com)

Vitenka, for dynamic effects, would you prefer Javascript or Flash? (or Java applets, or page reloads)? --B

: I would prefer that the web not do dynamic effects. The model is: I click a link, you give me some data. Breaking that model leads to anger on my part. In theory someone may one day improve a service through the use of javascript or flash. So far it has not yet happened in any compelling way, so they stay turned off. For tickers and the like, the control stays in my hands where I set up an autorefresh. --Vitenka
: Is that basically a vote for page reloads? --CH
: It's a vote for "Whatever you are trying to do, you probably didn't want to do in the first place". But yes, at the very least degrade down to page reloads. --Vitenka

Stupid question for resident AJAX experts: what's responsible for freeing the XML tag tree? Is it the standard garbage collector, or the XML requester object? In other words, do I have to take a deep copy of it if I want to make another request and then do some more processing on what I got from the first one, or can I get away with just keeping the documentElement reference from the first one around? Or does it depend on the browser, or what? - MoonShadow

Perhaps the user is, by closing their browser, or by rebooting their computer ;-) --B

: That certainly seems to be the way FireFox behaves, judging by its memory consumption over time.. ;) - MoonShadow

[developerWorks article]

Both IE and FireFox have rather sensible limitations which state that the HttpXmlRequest? can only make requests of the same domain that the page is on. This is unhelpful however during development.

IE can be told to go ahead and connect anyway (at least for local html files connecting to remote servers) by clicking through various warnings, but I can't find a similar option in FireFox. Any idea how I would get this working in FireFox? --K

I never managed, TBH. After spending 10-20 minutes poking through unhelpful help files, I decided it'd be easier to just have a local proxy fake out the remote site. Apparently you can digitally sign your scripts, and FireFox will then consider them trusted, but I've never really looked into it. - MoonShadow

: Having looked into it a little more [this seems relevant] but I don't have time to play with it right now. --K

CategoryAbbreviation, CategoryComputing, CategoryIncrediblyNifty?