WANT some detail on AJAX

[Bugsy]

hi fellows pro,,,,,
i want some details regarding AJAX. can anyone help me in that ....


reply me with some good articles as well as tutorials in (.net)

[Dag Sunde]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX

"Bugsy" <skmistry@gmail .com> wrote in message
news:1136352778 .038686.58190@g 49g2000cwa.goog legroups.com...[color=blue]
> hi fellows pro,,,,,
> i want some details regarding AJAX. can anyone help me in that ....
>
>
> reply me with some good articles as well as tutorials in (.net)[/color]

Google!

--
Dag.

[bwucke@gmail.com]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX


Bugsy napisal(a):[color=blue]
> hi fellows pro,,,,,
> i want some details regarding AJAX. can anyone help me in that ....
>
>
> reply me with some good articles as well as tutorials in (.net)[/color]

http://www.usabilityviews.com/ajaxsucks.html

(disregard the 'spoof' part, all points still hold.)

[madtom1999@yahoo.com]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX

They seem to apply to just about any setup! Lets just do everything in
PDFs and forget automation!

[madtom1999@yahoo.com]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX

http://www.ajaxinfo.com/

http://www.ajaxian.com/

http://dojotoolkit.org/

http://www.ajaxmatters.com/r/welcome

http://dojo.jot.com/WidgetWishlist

also check out JSON

Its a relatively new technology (well a new name anyhow) most of the
commnets int he article Bwucke refers to are 'sort of right but wrong'
AJAX pages are active and should be hidden form search engines like any
other cgi stuff.
The other comments seem to apply to juts about every simple HTML site.
The problems are not with ajax but with bad design in general.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX

madtom1999@yaho o.com wrote:
[color=blue]
> Its a relatively new technology[/color]

It is not.

<URL:http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/AJAX>
[color=blue]
> (well a new name anyhow) most of the commnets int he article Bwucke refers
> to are 'sort of right but wrong' AJAX pages are active and should be
> hidden form search engines like any other cgi stuff.[/color]

Nonsense. First, it is entirely possible to create (X)HTML documents
that work both with and without "AJAX" support. Second, there is no
reason why resources generated by CGI applications should be hidden
from search engines.


PointedEars

[madtom1999@yahoo.com]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX

I agree its perfectly possible to create acceptable HTML docs from AJAX
- it is in fact 'easy' once you know how. However if the content will
change regularly then the search engines will waste the searchers time
and your servers time cpu by trying to take you to pages that 'no
longer exist'.
The original idea behind robots.txt was to stop your server being
hammered by search engines. Now you should use it on your DYNAMIC
content pages so search engines dont point to expired data.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX

madtom1999@yaho o.com wrote:
[color=blue]
> I agree its perfectly possible to create acceptable HTML docs from AJAX[/color]

"create ... from AJAX"? You have not even understood what I was talking
about; let alone quoted what you are replying to, as strongly recommended
by the newsgroup's FAQ:

<URL:http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/pots1.html#ps1P ost>
<URL:http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsrep ly/>
[color=blue]
> [...] However if the content will change regularly then the search
> engines will waste the searchers time and your servers time cpu by
> trying to take you to pages that 'no longer exist'.
> The original idea behind robots.txt was to stop your server being
> hammered by search engines. Now you should use it on your DYNAMIC
> content pages so search engines dont point to expired data.[/color]

Rubbish. Have you even understood what /you/ are talking about? An
important part of the idea behind CGI and similar applications is that
similar content can be generated through a template, instead of files
with similar structure but different data. It is complete nonsense to
hide that generated content from search engines because, after all, you
want to be found due to the content you provide.

Learn about caching techniques, redirection and search engine optimization,
in general get informed, before you utter further nonsense here. Nobody is
helped with your half-knowledge but it does harm to those that actually
believe you.


PointedEars

[VK]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX


Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=blue]
> Learn about caching techniques, redirection and search engine optimization,
> in general get informed, before you utter further nonsense here. Nobody is
> helped with your half-knowledge but it does harm to those that actually
> believe you.[/color]

Off the prozac again? I told you it's too early yet!

One brainless, other is humanless (by someone's recent definition).
Reminds me something from Futurama. Poor clj...

:-)

Besides all possible materials one can find in the Internet it is a
must I guess to read the original article where the term "AJAX" has
been introduced (and all the rush started):

<http://www.adaptivepat h.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php>

There are also interesting (from *my personal biased point of view*)
discussions in this group:

<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.lang.javas cript/browse_frm/thread/f6ce0a5e95d8bf3 0/95c4d63e4c82f06 8>

and here:

<http://groups.google.c om/group/comp.lang.javas cript/browse_frm/thread/77a9c7235d624b6 1/292d292553d024f 7>

Also while reading current articles one has to remember that
XMLHttpRequest / AJAX is not just a technologies anymore. It's a
business too: a lot of money has been invested (and not amortizated
yet) to different "AJAX Solutions" - and a lot of people are getting
their current payroll check grace to AJAX. So it's a golem structure
now (in sociological sense). It is able and it will fight for its
existence using its underlaying units (people). So the ping-pong game
"sucks - doesn't suck" will get more and more intensive and arguments
will be more and more senseless (but full of sense to whoever write
whem).

[Michael Winter]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX

On 04/01/2006 16:43, VK wrote:

[snip]
[color=blue]
> So the ping-pong game "sucks - doesn't suck" will get more and more
> intensive and arguments will be more and more senseless (but full of
> sense to whoever write whem).[/color]

Then perhaps it should be ended here, in this thread. AJAX, in itself,
doesn't 'suck' (though the abbreviated name does :-D). However, it's
very easy to apply it badly. GMail, when it was first released, is an
obvious example of such an application.

If AJAX is used in the way that all scripts should be on the Web,
there's no problem with it.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[bwucke@gmail.com]

Re: WANT some detail on AJAX


Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=blue]
> madtom1999@yaho o.com wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I agree its perfectly possible to create acceptable HTML docs from AJAX
> > [...] However if the content will change regularly then the search
> > engines will waste the searchers time and your servers time cpu by
> > trying to take you to pages that 'no longer exist'.
> > The original idea behind robots.txt was to stop your server being
> > hammered by search engines. Now you should use it on your DYNAMIC
> > content pages so search engines dont point to expired data.[/color]
>
> Rubbish. Have you even understood what /you/ are talking about? An
> important part of the idea behind CGI and similar applications is that
> similar content can be generated through a template,[/color]

Yes. Many terabytes of similar content. And the robots won't care if
it's similar as long as it differs even slightly. If you write Towers
of Hanoi in CGI, the user will play by following one line of links,
towards the victory. Bandwidth used: up to 1MB. The robot will try to
download ALL possible combinations. Bandwidth used: several gigabytes,
until you cut it off.
[color=blue]
> It is complete nonsense to
> hide that generated content from search engines because, after all, you
> want to be found due to the content you provide.[/color]

It may be undesired to hide IMPORTED content from search engines - if a
page is generated with a template and content pulled from database,
then yes. If the content is GENERATED then storing it in search engine
is usually complete nonsense. Search results, temporary statistics,
generated navigational shortcuts, personal user settings,
cross-references in source code - all the cases where the number of
pages generated by server from 'n' of fixed content isn't O(n) but
O(exp(n)) or similar.
I bet Mozilla Foundation would gladly open LXR for caching by Google if
you're ready to pay their bandwidth bills.

If the content is generated/downloaded by AJAX, most likely the search
engines will never see it. If you include it 'redundantly' from server
in the same pages, you miss the whole point of using AJAX which is
cutting on amount of data transmitted. If you allow accessing it
alternatively to AJAX pages, then including the AJAX pages in search
engines misses the point as they don't contain the content, just
scripts.
[color=blue]
> Learn about caching techniques, redirection and search engine optimization,
> in general get informed, before you utter further nonsense here.[/color]

Learn about basic server costs management, creating
searchengine-friendly content (as opposed to link farms and tons of
crap called "search engines optimization" which buys you a week with
pagerank 4 and a place above competition and then a manual bittchslap
from a Google operator, sending your company's page into oblivion) and
in general get a clue.
[color=blue]
> Nobody is
> helped with your half-knowledge but it does harm to those that actually
> believe you.[/color]

ditto.