Talk:Ajax (programming)/Archive 2

message: * I would like to make a formal request to add http://www.celtickane.com/programming/code/ajax.php to the external links section of this page.  It is my own website, so I wouldn't like to add it myself, but I would prefer that someone else review the website, and make the decision to add it.  Feather Ajax is a 1KB Ajax library intended to teach users how to program a small (but extremely effective) ajax library using Javascript and any server-side script they prefer (the examples are written in PHP). --Sugarskane 04:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for external link addition 

message: The article states that the term AJAX was coined in 2005 - is there a reference for this somewhere?
-Andreas
: The first known use of the term in public was by Jesse James Garrett in his February 2005 article Ajax: A New Approach to Web Applications. http://www.adaptivepath.com/publications/essays/archives/000385.php --Sleepyhead 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Ajax Patterns keeps being added (sometimes by me, sometimes by others), and removed again, usually indiscriminately with several other references. What's everyone's take on it? It's basically the complete draft text to a book on Ajax, with topics ranging from basic Javascript/DOM stuff to advanced architectural concepts, as well as details on 100+ famework and library details. With all content under CC. Sems fairly appropriate as an external reference, I'd have thought. Mahemoff
:I suppose all this stuff is already dispatched in various pages at Wikipedia, else let me know... Spankman 12:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who watches this topic closely, I can attest that Ajax Patterns is the most complete and authoritative single point of reference available on the topic of Ajax.  If there were to be only one external site reference included in the Wikipedia Ajax entry, this is the link I would recommend. Brentashley 13:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are billions of external links but no useful information related to Ajax for me. Spankman 06:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where are these billions of external links? Most links are to original content inside the website. Mahemoff 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to  the guidelines one must avoid to link to "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research". Spankman 10:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've got me there. If you're not able to point me to the billions of external links, could you help me locate the factually inaccurate material or unverified original research? --Mahemoff 10:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are funny. Since this is a wiki, the whole site is made by no matter who and it is clear there is not at Ajaxpattern enough people to verify all the pages and all the links. The bookmark sections require a code to enter and this is also forbidden by the guidelines. Spankman 12:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is "clear" because...? The site gets thousands of eyeballs a day. As it happens, many pages are read-only (although I don't see how an openly editable wiki is actually a downside). I'm not aware of any bookmark sections requiring a code, the entire content is publicly available. --Mahemoff 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, I have watched this website closely, and found nothing valuable about Ajax. There are articles that are out of topic and seem taken from other websites, and links, links, links, but no real work. Alcalazar 11:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alcalazar, can you please provide an example an article that is "out of topic" on Ajax Patterns? Also, did you look at the 70 chapter-length entries of original writing, or just the Ajax Links page, which is the only page I'm aware of that is essentially just  only links. Mahemoff 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, "Page rearangement", is an article on Dom, not on Ajax. Alcalazar 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DOM has nothing to do with Ajax? Please refer to JJG's original article (which I quote below). At least you now seem to accept the content is original.--Mahemoff 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: AjaxPatters.org is one of the most comprehensive collection of resources about Ajax on the web that I have seen. I do think it is very useful for Ajax developers. But so are many other sites and portals about Ajax. The problem we have with this Ajax article is that people keep adding links to their own site - useful or not. So as we have seen in the past, the link list keep growing and growing. There are two issues with keeping this link. First of all the link section is divided in two: articles and tutorials. Ajaxpatters.org is a collection of both but the link is to the main site while all the other links are to specific articles. I am not saying that this sectioning is good - in fact it makes it makes the job of cutting the links down harder as there are many good Ajax articles and tutorials. Second; there are many other portals and sites with a collection of tutorials/articles. Shall we add this as well? --Sleepyhead 11:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we should keep here links to articles closely related to Ajax (XMLHttpRequest +JavaScript all together) because we can except lot of developments in the future using Ajax, and the size of this page will become virtually unlimited. Maybe we should create other pages to cover all subjects. Ajaxpatterns is not a tutorial actually and if a link is added here, put it at root of "External links" instead. Booles 12:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There's been a lot of misinformation and irrational logic in this thread, which I've tried to address, but I can see it going around in circles from here, so we're going to have to agree to disagree. I do want to point one specific technical point out though: Ajax does not mean, and was never intended to mean "What can we do with XMLHttpRequest". Please read JJG's original Ajax article and the FAQ below, which states, "Ajax is our name for the overall approach described in the article, which relies not only on XMLHttpRequest, but on CSS, DOM, and other technologies.". Although some people here do feel the site is link-worthy, there seems to be a general resistance against changing any of the links or their structure, which to me goes against the principles of wikipedia, but I guess it's understandable given the disputes that might arise. Until any structural changes happen to those links, I'm going to jump out of this conversation. --Mahemoff 13:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is a very good page on the site, it may be linked. The site if a farmlink for me. Spankman 13:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? There is no vote and you create a sockpuppet to vote? Spankman 13:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: They are now hidding backlinks into the body of the text. Spankman 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spankman, once again, you've made it seem like you have some agenda by making a wild, derogatory, claim with *zero evidence*. Now the possibility you have an agenda here is I'm sure just silly - after all, this is Wikipedia, and you are just an impartial (if anonymous)  contributor hoping to maintain a high quality article. So far, you've called AjaxPatterns a "farmlink", "factually incorrect or unverified original research" (by implication), "no useful information related to Ajax", and you've made some inane comment about the "bookmark area" requiring a code, which you never explained. Which might lead some people to question your motives, but not me. So please enlighten us all on this, your latest effort to improve the quality of this article...Who are "They" are where are these hidden backlinks? --Mahemoff 12:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AjaxPatterns.org Reference 

message: Several links to a same page, in several articles at Wikipedia is SPAM. Please choose the best location, and link your page only once. Alcalazar 12:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the links are relevant to both articles, I disagree, and I have not found any mention of this on WP:EL. The link has been removed from XMLHttpRequest. Rufous 16:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the "See  also" section is due a major cull. Creating an Ajax frameworks page and putting some of them there might be a good idea, though obviously such a page would be at risk of becoming a link farm. --Artw 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should remove also the link to Mozilla. It is linked twice. Spankman 13:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple links

message: I deleted the following section as it is such a horrible solution I seriously doubt anybody uses it. 
An alternative to this method could be to open up an application in a fullscreen window, with no buttons or menu whatsoever, thus eliminating the need for (or even existince of) a back button. Once the new window has opened there will be no back state available.
Feel free to restore it if i am in the wrong, though I'd quite frankly be horrified to discover anyone actually doing this.
Anyhow, I thought everyone was using the fragment identifier technique these days? --Artw 18:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To my knowledge, using a pop-up with toolbar and buttons disabled by JavaScript was a common trick employed by applications ever since web applications exist to avoid unexpected behaviour.  For instance, the HSBC online banking system would show your accounts in a pop-up with no buttons.  How much of this trick is specific to Ajax, however, is something more difficult to ascertain.  --Pkchan 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back Button Support 

message: Since it's noted that there are alternatives to XmlHttpRequest, might it be relevant to include:
One alternative is to employ a persistent connection for asynchronous exchange between browser and service . --4.156.195.190 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to this page has been repeatedly added to the history section. It's apparently a "a javascript module for Firefox 1.5 " and as far as I can see it isn't particularly notable, isn't particularly relevant to the history of AJAX and since it's Firefox specific may not even be relevant to AJAX. So far I've been removing it as link spam, but it keeps coming back. Artw 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History (2)

message: Would all you regular editors trying to keep the article clean appreciate the return of semiprotection? I'm not sure I'm seeing much in the way of reasonable contributions by the anons, and as the unprotecting admin I feel kind of like I've left you swinging in the wind. Syrthiss 12:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general I'm against semiprotecting for long periods of time too, and it looks like you're reasonably on top of things. Syrthiss 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 2 - the return of semiprotection? 

message: I just want to share a few of my personal AJAX expirences. As a team leader in a company that has been struggeling with the AJAX concepts for years, I have seen both power and trouble in this model.
I do think that by far the most fruitfull features of AJAX model is its ability to cleanly seperate user interface details from the actual functionality of the application. XML is powerfull enough to meet almost any requirements on complexity of data to be exchanged, while at the same time it allows us to limit the number of different forms that this data can take - for example by means of an XML schema serving as a contract (design by contract) between the two.
This kind of seperation is a fundamental design principle that provides transparency and stability and thus, maintainability, as any experienced "hacker" knows. An obvious practical benefit is that you can invoke the AJAX services from the command line shell, which will ideally give access to exactly the same functionality as through the browser. This in turn can easily be utilized in automated testing.
Now, this is where I whish the story ended, but unfortunately not. In the beginning the DOM API / JavaScript combination seems like a treasure of oppertunities, but all too soon you are forced to make compromises. Genrally you will only be able to acheive almost what you want, and generally only be able to support a few of the popular browsers. It is always a fierce, troublesome and extremely time consuming effort which is needed. So one problem is that the DOM API is too low-level and another that browser need a lot of quirks to do what you expect. I belive it is rather unique to this platform that by far the most time is spent on finding workarounds for API quirks.
Although JavaScript is a pretty powerfull and expressive language (when you really get to know it) I feel it does add to the problems of the AJAX model. The problem is that as you build more and bigger application components you will have to start thinking about things like reusability and stability of you JavaScript code. While JavaScript does support object orientation and various forms class derivation, it does lack the concept of encapsulation of implementation withing class hierarchies. You can use JavaScrips concept of closures for safe encapsulation, but it does not fit constructivly into the concept of class hierarchies.
One prticular problem with JavaScript is that a member of a base class cannot be made private. Thus whenever you want to add new properties to a derived class you must take care not to reuse names of already used properties in the entire chain of base classes. While most other issues can be dealt with reasonable well, the lack of encapsulation is a serious problem and really does limit the scalability of your code base.
Hope some of this input can be used in the main article.
Kristian 08:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your points might be better off as part of a discussion of DHTML or Javascript in general, since they apply to a broader field than just AJAX -Artw 17:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean seperation between application logic and user interface 

message: hi,
I wonder how Ajax will influence google indexation ?
Does anyone know?
: That would depend entirely on how the non-JS version of your site or web-app works, since Google ignores Javascript --Artw 17:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Googling ? 

message: How is Ajax not an acronym? --142.161.169.169 05:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a hobbyhorse of User 81.96.175.204.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajax_%28programming%29&diff=53269519&oldid=53195457 when I gave up arguing about it. --Nigelj 11:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the article says Asynchronous JavaScript and XML. Note the "and", not the "with". And that's not an acronym.....? --JCipriani 01:57, 09 July 2006 (EDT)
Regardless, this should be fixed. The comment is irrelavent (does it really matter wheter or not it is an acronym?), so it should either be deleted, or followed up with a sentance explaining that it is an acronym. --Munchkinguy 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an Acronym? 

message: Anyone heard of this site called AjaxProjects (http://www.ajaxprojects.com) before?  It seems that an anoymous user has been systematically adding links to this site and I am not sure whether the links are genuinely useful and relevant or we should revert them all as link spam.  --Pkchan 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site looks useful and relevant, and isn't obviously a link farm (though it does feature a prominent adsense ad) but the blanket linking IS definately suspect, and the quality of the links should be checked. Artw 19:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: AjaxProjects.com links appear frequently at the end of Ajax-related blog posts (e.g. on Ajaxian.com) and they are usually a generic, one-sentence, link to the site with absolutely no reference to the article. The site's content itself does seem to be original AFAICT. (Disclaimer: The site content overlaps in some respects to the site I run, AjaxPatterns.org.) --Mahemoff 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AjaxProjects 

message: A page seems to have been created for AJAJ, or "Asynchronious Javascript with JSON". I see no reason for such a page to exist seperatly, but should it be merged here or to JSON? Or just dropped entirely? Artw 22:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Asynchronous server query is another troublesome page that may need some attention and possible merging. Artw 22:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I've gone ahead and redirected AJAJ to here... Artw 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AJAJ 

message: What's the fuss about the infobox now apprearing at the beginning of the article?  It doesn't appear to be a general infobox, so we don't even know what that infobox is trying to describe.  And the image doesn't appear to bear any official recoginiton at all (not to mention the aesthetics).  I would strongly suggest to take it down.  --John Seward 06:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iwas a bit confused by that. Ajax has a logo now? It probably should be taken down. Artw 15:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great.  --John Seward 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox