I think I can probably end this conversation right now.
The absolute BEST JavaScript Framework/Library/selfwritten code is...
whatever allows you to get the job down in the most efficient, easy to
maintain manner, and the one that addresses the needs of the users.
It just so happens that for a
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 9:44 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
I think I can probably end this conversation right now.
The absolute BEST JavaScript Framework/Library/selfwritten code is...
whatever allows you to get the job down in the most efficient, easy
So you agree with an incorrect assesment of the size of jQuery? It's
31KB minimized, not 300k.
230k to be more accurate, and about 9000 lines of code in only one file.
The minimized version is 90k and still equivalent to 9000 lines of code to be
compiled.
Again, if one just needs some Ajax
Perhaps, you could build something like this, but in reality it is much
better to have 3 or 4 DIFFERENT cars for different purposes.
Or even only ONE if you have only one purpose!
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:rcam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, 20 May 2011 11:44 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
I think I can probably end this conversation right now.
The absolute BEST JavaScript Framework/Library/selfwritten code is...
whatever
Why reinvent the wheel over and over
Please explain why writing code BEFORE the equivalent exists in some open
source library is REinventing the wheel.
Example:
When I first looked for a good online editor I could find no one able to clean
up MS Word crap.
So I designed my own, about 10
Again, unless you're developing for the two oldest and slowest computers on
the 'Net, 90k and 9000 lines of code is *nothing* and/or cached.
And you get all of the stuff that's been pointed out in this thread:
- a standard way of handling things so that, if you get hit by a bus and
your
Out of curiosity, how does all this help the OP solve his/her problem?
Shouldn't this discussion be moved to a more appropriate venue?
Curious-G!
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM, wrote:
Why reinvent the wheel over and over
Please explain why writing code BEFORE the equivalent exists in
That's an interesting anecdote, however I don't see how it relates to the
topic at hand.
When I build new apps I don't use my old pre jQuery codebase anymore. I've
updated to use jQuery (or equiv). Why? Because it's more flexible,
upgradeable, backward compatible and scalable. And for me that's
I think it's likely very helpful for the OP to decide which AJAX solution to
employ. This discussion is showing him two sides to the js framework story
which will help him make his own informed decision.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Gerald Guido gerald.gu...@gmail.comwrote:
Out of
schneeg...@internetique.com
[mailto:=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claude_Schn=E9egans schneegans@interneti=71?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ue.com=3E?=]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 11:06 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
So you agree with an incorrect assesment of the size of jQuery? It's
31KB minimized
]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:02 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
That's an interesting anecdote, however I don't see how it relates to the
topic at hand.
When I build new apps I don't use my old pre jQuery codebase anymore. I've
updated to use jQuery (or equiv). Why
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Rick Faircloth wrote:
Michael, I'm still using my Radio Shack Color Computer with 4K of RAM,
an audio cassette tape for data storage and no monitor,
which cost me $525 in 1982.
Perhaps I would be more productive if I upgraded to 16K of RAM? :o)
But he's
That's an interesting anecdote, however I don't see how it relates to the
topic at hand.
It does in the sense If you are capable of developing your own tools, it could
be a better and more efficient solution.
If you're not, then use some other's.
But he's no longer on CF5
He was on CF4.5! ;-)
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
The Production jQuery core is 31KB, minified and gzipped,
This is for the packed version, but it must be unpacked before it is used
on client side, which requires non-trivial client-side processing time
according to the same official jQuery site.
The minimized uncompressed version is exactly
Geez. Can this thread die already?
Claude *
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:40 AM, wrote:
The Production jQuery core is 31KB, minified and gzipped,
This is for the packed version, but it must be unpacked before it is
used on client side, which requires non-trivial client-side processing
90k and 9000 lines of code is *nothing*
It may be nothing, but if all you need is access to Ajax facilities, it is
still 900 times bigger than necessary.
And since I started developing applications, I obey this fundamental principle:
NEVER USE CODE 900 TIMES BIGGER THAN NECESSARY.
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Rick Faircloth wrote:
Michael, I'm still using my Radio Shack Color Computer with 4K of RAM,
an audio cassette tape for data storage and no monitor,
which cost me $525 in 1982.
Perhaps I would be more productive if I
Good memory, Claude!
-Original Message-
From: Claude Schnéegans schneeg...@internetique.com
[mailto:=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claude_Schn=E9egans schneegans@interneti=71?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ue.com=3E?=]
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 12:36 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
I'm capable. You're capable. Most of us are capable. I just don't see a
point to it. I'm also capable of grinding my own flour, but why bother when
I can just buy a bag?
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:34 PM, wrote:
That's an interesting anecdote, however I don't see how it relates to
the
I guess all you want is to make on croissant and you have to buy a whole bag of
flour.
Then again, you might want to make pizza later on or maybe some tasty bread!
Oh dear, this analogy has made me hungry.
It reminds me EXACTLY of the Frameworks arguments that always crop up.
MD
On 20
Carrying 300K of JS code (min) just to do something that takes 10 lines (or
less) of JS code is nonsense. Not even speaking about its terrible performance.
jQuery + infinity
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
1) It's 90k minified
2) Those 10 lines will inevitably be 1 line of jQuery
3) Those 10 lines will work in your favourite browser; then you find
that IE x has some quirk you didn't count on, etc
4) You and Claude S will best friends, I can tell
--
WSS4CF - WS-Security framework for CF
I used to feel the exact same way!
Then I realized I was wrong.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Andrei Kondrashev adiab...@cs.com wrote:
Carrying 300K of JS code (min) just to do something that takes 10 lines (or
less) of JS code is nonsense. Not even speaking about its terrible
And add to that that if you use the CDN version, most people already
have it cached.
I've yet to see any performance issues with it.
Would things be faster w/o using a framework? Maybe - but as in all
things - you make trades between performance and the ability to
maintain the code. I'm SO
Where do you get 300K?
jQuery core is only 229K uncompressed...
31K, minified and gzipped.
www.jquery.com
-Original Message-
From: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:45 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
I used to feel
2) Those 10 lines will inevitably be 1 line of jQuery
What's the difference between 1 line to call a jQuery function inside a 90k JS
code and 1 line to call a 10 lines function in your own JS code ?
Those 10 lines will work in your favourite browser; then you find
that IE x has some quirk
: Michael Grant [mailto:mgr...@modus.bz]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 6:45 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
I used to feel the exact same way!
Then I realized I was wrong.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Andrei Kondrashev adiab...@cs.com wrote:
Carrying 300K
Do those 10 lines of code enable you to write different handlers
depending on the status code and success of the http call without any
fuss? Do they translate common response formats into plain js objects
for you?
On 19 May 2011 14:25, wrote:
2) Those 10 lines will inevitably be 1 line of
Carrying 300K of JS code (min) just to do something that takes 10 lines
(or less) of JS code is nonsense. Not even speaking about its terrible
performance.
The exact same argument could be made swapping out jQuery with CF and JS
with PHP.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Andrei Kondrashev
Carrying 300K of JS code (min) just to do something that takes 10 lines (or
less) of JS code is nonsense.
I agree 100%. I do all my Ajax stuff with only two functions: ajaxGET (url) and
ajaxPOST (url, sendText),
exactly 10 lines each.
Do those 10 lines of code enable you to write different handlers
depending on the status code and success of the http call without any
fuss?
Better than that : they open a new window to display the CF error dump in case
the called template caused an error.
Do they translate common response
So you agree with an incorrect assesment of the size of jQuery? It's
31KB minimized, not 300k.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 8:17 AM, wrote:
Carrying 300K of JS code (min) just to do something that takes 10 lines
(or less) of JS code is nonsense.
I agree 100%. I do all my Ajax stuff with only
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:24 AM, wrote:
Do those 10 lines of code enable you to write different handlers
depending on the status code and success of the http call without any
fuss?
Better than that : they open a new window to display the CF error dump in
case the called template caused
Eh? How does jQuery make it easier for folks to get a CF error dump?
Can you explain that?
I was talking about my own code, not jQuery.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
I'd argue with that being better. Custom handlers for different
responses allows you to tailor the reaction to failures either
globally or case by case - you could open a new window with an error
report, show a nice message for the user, do nothing, etc.
I'm sure that your ajaxGet and ajaxPost
To be clear, even on Edge or 56K dial-up, non-cached Jquery, with all its
built-in goodness, arrives in less than a second...so...I really can't
imagine why rolling your own just-enough JS would be better. At least
when it comes to speed/performance.
Now, certainly, if you need to do X and
Have you used jQuery Claude?
I use a couple of libraries in my system, but most of the time, there is
something I need they won't do, or 90% they do I don't need.
I've been developing my own functions far before jQuery existed and even the
term AJAX was invented.
They do exactly what I want
Clearly, use whatever you like...but...wrt your harvester analogy: when
the harvester is free, doesn't impact speed/performance, and will handle
the 10 square feet of grass and the 10 hectares of grass...I'm not seeing
the drawback of using it for both.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:57 AM, wrote:
jQuery (and other libraries) is well tested, well maintained, hugely
popular and well thought out. All these things will have an impact on
the speed of development and quality of code, especially for someone
who wasn't coding before these things were commonplace.
Andrei's assertion that using
@interneti=71?=
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?ue.com=3E?=]
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:24 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
Do those 10 lines of code enable you to write different handlers
depending on the status code and success of the http call without any
fuss?
Better than
And btw - why do you show up nameles
He shows up nameless for Gmail users because of a character encoding
mismatch between Google's mail servers and his mail server.
Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software
http://www.figleaf.com/
http://training.figleaf.com/
Fig Leaf Software is a Veteran-Owned
He shows up nameless for Gmail users because of a character encoding
mismatch between Google's mail servers and his mail server.
Actually no, My name is correctly set up in Thunderbird and all messages
replied to me show my name correctly.
Only those forwarded by CF_talk are messed up.
The
Didn't really wanted to start a discussion. Just expressed my private opinion
applied to this particular situation, not really trying to make any general
claims.
1) It's 90k minified
Only 90? Great!
2) Those 10 lines will inevitably be 1 line of jQuery
No, my custom line will be 11th one.
The other side of the coin is that since a lot of people use JQuery, and a lot
of people get it from the shared JQuery CDN, users are bound to already have it
cached and therefore there will be little or no load time.
What terrible performance of JQuery? I guess it depends, but if you have
So you typically generate the HTML for an ajax call on the server side
and send that back to the browser? From a person who is concerned
about that extra second and the size of the jQuery library, this
approach seems a little contradictory as those ajax responses have to
be bloated due to all
I've been developing my own functions far before jQuery existed and even
the term AJAX was invented.
Most of us have. Big deal. I used to write all my own stuff too. Then I
wised up. Why reinvent the wheel over and over with code that is almost
certain to be of lower quality than the jQuery
My definition of library is something that contains millions of books,
but I can come there and borrow a SINGLE book I need, rather than carry back
home all millions books.
Well, at less than 100k your library/millions of books analogy is
fundamentally flawed. It's probably more accurate to
: Friday, 20 May 2011 6:16 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
Didn't really wanted to start a discussion. Just expressed my private
opinion
applied to this particular situation, not really trying to make any
general
claims.
1) It's 90k minified
Only 90? Great!
2
jQuery forever
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz wrote:
jQuery + infinity
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Raymond Camden rcam...@gmail.com wrote:
jQuery + 10. ;)
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Carl Von Stetten
vonner.li...@vonner.net wrote:
JQuery... that's all you need
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Darius Florczyk dar...@cybermash.com wrote:
Hi, I need to add AJAX functionality in a new project and wondering if anyone
had any recommendations for the most robust, stable choice. I will be using
it with CF7 but need for it
Yes; ignore everything in that list and use jQuery.
--
WSS4CF - WS-Security framework for CF
http://wss4cf.riaforge.org/
On 17 May 2011 23:50, Darius Florczyk dar...@cybermash.com wrote:
Hi, I need to add AJAX functionality in a new project and wondering if anyone
had any recommendations
jQuery.
--
Greg Luce
Luce Consulting Services, Inc.
(863) 273-0289
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Darius Florczyk dar...@cybermash.comwrote:
Hi, I need to add AJAX functionality in a new project and wondering if
anyone had any recommendations for the most robust, stable choice. I will
JQuery... that's all you need
Thank you for the suggestion. Any good tutorials on using CF with jQuery that
you are aware of? thanks
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
definitely jquery
Azadi
On 17/05/2011 23:50 , Darius Florczyk wrote:
Hi, I need to add AJAX functionality in a new project and wondering if anyone
had any recommendations for the most robust, stable choice. I will be using
it with CF7 but need for it to be easily portable to Railo. The
If you look into those solutions you mentioned, many of them do in fact use
jQuery, they are basically wrappers for CF to simplify Ajax with CF. It has
been years since I used any them, and I used to use AjaxCFC, and it
certainly did make things a bit quicker and easier than using raw JQuery.
On
The jQuery docs are very good
http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.get/
This is an example of how to grab content and put it into a div with the id
of myDiv.
$.get(getcontent.cfm, { id: 23, userId: 324 },
function(data){
$('#myDiv').html(data)
});
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Russ
JQuery... that's all you need
Thank you for the suggestion. Any good tutorials on using CF with
jQuery that you are aware of? thanks
Ray Camden's site has a bunch of excellent tutorials. You also may want to
check jQuery.com - they list some there as well. But as a starter:
jquery +1
On 5/17/2011 8:50 AM, Darius Florczyk wrote:
Hi, I need to add AJAX functionality in a new project and wondering if anyone
had any recommendations for the most robust, stable choice. I will be using
it with CF7 but need for it to be easily portable to Railo. The need is to
jQuery + 10. ;)
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Carl Von Stetten
vonner.li...@vonner.net wrote:
jquery +1
On 5/17/2011 8:50 AM, Darius Florczyk wrote:
Hi, I need to add AJAX functionality in a new project and wondering if
anyone had any recommendations for the most robust, stable
jQuery for the win...
-Original Message-
From: Raymond Camden [mailto:rcam...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 2:05 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: ColdFusion and AJAX choices
jQuery + 10. ;)
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Carl Von Stetten
vonner.li...@vonner.net wrote
Thank you for the example, I used jQuery a few times but for a larger project
that was a financial application I used wddxAjax but that was 5-6 years ago :)
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
thanks much
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/message.cfm/messageid:344597
jQuery + infinity
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Raymond Camden rcam...@gmail.com wrote:
jQuery + 10. ;)
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Carl Von Stetten
vonner.li...@vonner.net wrote:
jquery +1
On 5/17/2011 8:50 AM, Darius Florczyk wrote:
Hi, I need to add AJAX
65 matches
Mail list logo
