p2p.wrox.com Forums

p2p.wrox.com Forums (http://p2p.wrox.com/index.php)
-   BOOK: Professional Ajax ISBN: 978-0-471-77778-6 (http://p2p.wrox.com/forumdisplay.php?f=244)
-   -   Ajax Web Reference (http://p2p.wrox.com/showthread.php?t=39103)

ladred February 27th, 2006 12:48 PM

Ajax Web Reference
 
Expanding on part of Chapter 1 in the book, I thought I'd start a post that listed well designed sites on the Web that make use of this technology. I'll start the list with the ones provided in the book. If you know of any additions, just add a post.

Google Suggest

Google Mail (Gmail)

Google Maps

A9 (Amazon Search)

Yahoo News

Bitflux Blog

Flickr

Writely (A Word Processor)

Instant Domain Search

Netflix Top 100

Answer.com

Magnetic Poetry

Super Maryo World

More Ajax Examples

43things.com

adam_kahtava February 27th, 2006 06:36 PM

Google mail is technically not an example of AJAX.

http://www.flickr.com/
http://www.writely.com/
http://www.a9.com/
http://instantdomainsearch.com/
http://www.netflix.com/Top100/
http://www.answer.com/

- A.Kahtava

nzakas February 27th, 2006 09:01 PM

Actually, Gmail *is* an example of Ajax, as are all the others. Ajax is a very broad term, as described in the beginning of the book. Gmail is considered Ajax because it makes use of behind-the-scenes data transfers to provide a seamless user experience.

Nicholas C. Zakas
Author, Professional JavaScript for Web Developers (ISBN 0764579088)
http://www.nczonline.net/

adam_kahtava February 28th, 2006 07:46 AM

Nzakas,

I understand your claim that Google Mail uses "behind-the-scenes" data transfer; however that claim alone doesn't mean it's an AJAXian application. Could you provide a better explanation on why specifically Gmail is an example of AJAX?

I just pulled this off of Wikipedia, I know wiki has been wrong in the past...

"Contrary to popular belief, Gmail's interface is not an example of Ajax techniques - instead of XML, data is transferred with chunks of JavaScript code." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail

This is bugging me, I'd like to get this sorted out.

- A.Kahtava

ladred February 28th, 2006 09:50 AM

Quoting the actual book, "Gmail, Google's free e-mail service has been raved about as a marvel of client-server interaction in the age of Ajax. When you first log in to Gmail, a user interface engine is loaded into one of the few iframes the application uses. All further requests back to the server occur through this user interface engine through an XMLHttp object."

Although we are just arguing semantics here, I believe that the definition for Ajax is broad enough to include Gmail.


nzakas February 28th, 2006 10:58 AM

Yes, I think the point A.Kahtava is making is that Gmail doesn't use XML, so it's not Ajax. I'd like to point out (as I did in the book) that XML is *not* a requirement of Ajax. In fact, if you read Jesse James Garrett's article (http://www.adaptivepath.com/publicat...ves/000385.php), he directly mentions Gmail as implementing Ajax.

So again, as stated in the book, the Ajax approach is not tied to one particular method of communication (hidden frames, XMLHttp, etc.) nor one particular data transmission format (XML, plain text, JSON, etc.).

Nicholas C. Zakas
Author, Professional JavaScript for Web Developers (ISBN 0764579088)
http://www.nczonline.net/

adam_kahtava February 28th, 2006 07:39 PM

My last post was more of a question, rather than a point.
The question being: What makes GMail an AJAX app? Why does Wikipedia explicitly state that GMail is not an AJAX app?

Wikipedia is probably wrong; the definition of AJAX continually changes and expands.
I think the misconception probably originated from the division of iFrames and AJAX. AJAX and iFrames were perceived as two separate ways of doing the same thing, but have since become complimentary technologies.

Thanks for the discussion Nzakas.

- A.Kahtava

nzakas February 28th, 2006 09:12 PM

Yes, you also have to realize that Wikipedia is written entirely by volunteers and not everything that is posted is factually true. Literally anyone can submit the information and it just shows up until someone else changes it or removes it. Generally, it's dangerous to rely solely on Wikipedia definitions.

Nicholas C. Zakas
Author, Professional JavaScript for Web Developers (ISBN 0764579088)
http://www.nczonline.net/

adam_kahtava February 28th, 2006 09:59 PM

Yes; that's obvious. Wikipediea clearly states that it is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

I agree; it is dangerous to rely solely on a single source whether it be Wikipedia, a programming reference book, work of mouth, etc...

We must continually critically analyze what we read and hear. Similarly; every rumor has (or had) a small grain of truth. So if Wikipedia states that "contrary to popular belief, Gmail's interface is not an example of Ajax". I should consider that there could have been some grain of truth that lead to the entry.
Perhaps the general definition of AJAX expanded, perhaps this is an outdated entry, perhaps someone made a mistake, or perhaps it's a practical joke.

Generally, it’s better to critically analyze and think things through.
It is dangerous to rely solely on one source.

- A.Kahtava

ladred March 1st, 2006 09:10 AM

Any chance we can get back in the direction of the first post? This isn't the place to discuss the broad definition of AJAX, the morality of wikipedia, or your opinion in any way shape or form. If you would like to discuss those things, feel free to start your own thread. This thread was intended to give people more references to visit for AJAX examples. Whether or not you think its a good example isn't the purpose of this thread. Thanks.

~Lad



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.