Note that, in spite of the name, you don't have to use xml with AJAX.
I use the combination of an AJAX front end on a web page to invoke
rev
cgi scripts on the server in order to update a section of the page.
Works fine without any actual xml involved. I prefer to call it AJAR.
I have never seen a well-scaled app that worked this way. There has,
in my experience been too much traffic back and forth to make it
efficient. It isn't that the server can't handle the load, but
generally the clients can't.
I must not be understanding your comment - how does this generate any
more traffic than using XML, or for that sake - using frames instead
of asynchronous calls? Lots of well-scaled apps update portions of
the page from remote scripts - that's pretty much every "Web 2.0"
product on the market. Sticking XML in the middle, if you don't
really need it, only creates *another* layer of processing. It's not
like XML is less verbose than HTML, or that plain text takes up a lot
of bandwidth...
That said, you're spot on about the hardest part being "accurately
representing what you want your application to do". And that's true
for any app, not just restricted to AJAX.
What makes this harder, though, is the fact that you are taking an
application that is already written and essentially converting it to
something else. That, I think is the hard part, because you are
asking the machine to do it.
I think the only reasonable expectation would be that you develop in
some sort of a "web compatibility" mode. It would be nearly
impossible to convert just any existing Rev stack.
- Brian
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
