I use JsonNet myself. Same stuff but for .net 2, but even then..
sometimes you send a whole table down, then you need to dynamically add a
row on the client side... there's various models available to implement this
model of course...
On Jan 14, 2008 9:34 AM, Michael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Have you guys ever used System.Web.Extensions.JsonSerializer. Its a
> great way to serialize objects to json and back. I stopped shipping
> markup and started shipping json as it drastically reduced my transfer
> size. Why write rendering in .Net when prototype gives you real
> objects to play with.
>
>
> On Jan 13, 12:25pm, "Gareth Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As an aside, I develop in asp.net with prototype, and I can relate to
> what
> > Iain is saying- you have to define your markup twice, however.. don't
> jump
> > on the asp-bashing bandwagon just yet- you'd have to do the same in any
> > server side language- cold fusion, php, asp; they all suffer from this.
> > Unless you develop your application to be completely client side driven,
> > where the data is sent to the client and it is *transformed* to markup
> using
> > templates, new Element et al; you end up having to place your markup in
> two
> > places.
> >
> > How do others get around this problem? it's a pain to decide, for
> example, a
> > column needs to be in another position and having to change the markup
> in
> > two places.
> > I can think of 3 solutions.
> >
> > Solution 1
> > Store the 'template' data on the server side. Write a class to retreive
> it
> > on the server side, and use (.net here) reflection to dynamically
> evaluate
> > it, thus meaning the same markup structure #{key} can be used. On the
> client
> > side, extend new Template so that the markup can be retreived from a
> URL.
> > Solution 2
> > Keep your markup entirely on the server, render the page as per normal
> > except always render a hidden version of the markup with no data fields
> > evaluated - then when the user changes data, grab the blank version and
> > interpolate/evaluate your changes into it.
> > Solution 3
> > Store your markup in .js files and parse them on the server. do the same
> as
> > 1.
> >
> > Iain, I've not tried using js from a runat=server tag but I expect it's
> > something to do with prototype being fairly advanced js and the
> microsoft
> > interpreter being 'jscript'.
> > i would lean towards trying to find a different way to structure your
> > application so that you don't need to include prototype on the server.
> > What variation are you using? vb.net / c#? .net 1 / 2? and what specific
> > functions were you trying to leverage in prototype for use on the
> server?
> >
> > I don't want to wind the PHP folk up here, but being able to leverage
> the
> > .net framework and especially the Visual studio IDE speeds development
> up
> > for me.
> > I know there are similar ide's available for other languages but I tend
> to
> > feel that the php style of coding <? insert script here between your
> html ?>
> > is way too similar to the classic asp <% insert script here %> model
> which
> > never really worked in the first place.
> > PHP is definitely more advanced than classic asp, due to the large
> library
> > of functions available, but I hasten to point out that the grass is
> *always*
> > greener on the other side. Don't let the opinion of 'asp' cloud your
> > judgement of asp.net as it's come a long long way.
> >
> > Gareth
> >
> > On Jan 13, 2008 11:09 PM, iporter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thanks Matt, I appreciate your thoughts.
> >
> > > On Jan 11, 2:22 pm, Matt Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I can't say I fully understand your troubles with ASP, maybe you
> > > > should boycott the evil empire and move on to greener pastures?
> >
> > > The more I learn, the more I'm tempted. But it would involve a bit of
> > > a learning curve for which I don't currently have time.
> >
> > > > On the idea of having a web application that initiates with database
> > > > driven data on load and then has to interact with ajax requests to
> > > > update the document I suggest using a common service that serves
> XML.
> > > > Your asp environment will then be able to make the same call to
> > > > extract the XML and iterate over nodes for display as the ajax
> request
> > > > does. In this way you only have one "middle tier" that interacts
> with
> > > > your data. You have two displays though, one for Ajax, one for
> > > > traditional web, not the best case but when you've got to
> accommodate
> > > > a broad audience what can ya do.
> >
> > > Yup, I think this is what I'm referring to when I say, 'I guess I
> > > could have used AJAX to get the server-side code to return the HTML.'
> > > The problem I have with this is that I'd have to pass all the
> > > parameters in addition to the data parameters. For example, if I
> > > wanted to draw a menu with a server-side menu object, I'd have to pass
> > > the database parameters plus menu object parameters like 'sortable',
> > > 'collapsible', etc. This doesn't seem intuitive.
> >
> > > > Hope that helps,
> > > > Matt
> >
> > > > On Jan 10, 6:40 pm, iporter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Although some javascript objects are client-specific (i.e.
> document)
> > > > > and others server-specific (i.e. Response), much of prototype.jscan
> > > > > be used on the server-side.
> >
> > > > > In building a recent application, I found myself building
> converting
> > > > > database data into HTML objects on the server-side, to ensure it
> > > > > readable by the search engines, but having to largely duplicate
> that
> > > > > code for the client-side to redraw the HTML when the user updated
> > > > > things. I guess I could have used AJAX to get the server-side code
> to
> > > > > return the HTML.
> >
> > > > > But I still need to have a client-side object, because I need to
> > > > > unobtrusivly add client-side behaviours to the HTML. Thus, what
> I'd
> > > > > like to be able to do, is define a class in a .js file, and then
> > > > > inlcude that .js file with both the server-side and client-side
> code.
> >
> > > > > If you put the code, function test() {return 1;} in a .js file,
> > > > > include this file in an ASP page using a <script runat="server">
> tag,
> > > > > and after this put <% Response.Write(test()) %>, you get '1' on
> the
> > > > > page. However, if you add the code, var x = 2 to the .js file, and
> > > > > put <% Response.Write(String(x)) %> in your ASP page, you get
> > > > > 'undefined'.
> >
> > > > > Interestingly, if you then remove the code x = 2 from the .js
> file,
> > > > > but leave the call in the ASP page, you get a runtime error
> 800a1391
> > > > > with a message saying, 'x is undefined'. Didn't our test before
> show
> > > > > it was already undefined?
> >
> > > > > The point being, that if functions work, but variables don't, then
> I
> > > > > can't use prototype's nice, var myClass = Class.create({});
> syntax.
> >
> > > > > What gives? Can I get around this somehow? Or perhaps this is
> > > > > ridiculous and you have a better approach to the problem?
> >
> > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts,
> > > > > Iain
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Spinoffs" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
