On Apr 27, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Mike Schrag wrote:
You should really take a look at the new Ajax stuff, it's pretty
cool and offers a lot of possibilities. Oh, here's a cool Ajax-
based app I've stumbled across:
Sort of a wonder-dev topic, but judging by emails I've gotten,
there's a fair amount of interest about Ajax in webobjects-dev
too ... I'm curious what other Ajax components people would like to
see WO-wrapped? We have the core interactive Scriptaculous
features wrapped. Currently none of the effects are wrapped, but
then I'm not sure having WO wrappers lends too much over just
javascript calls (open for opinions here). If you've run into a
situation where WO didn't bring it for your UI and the current
components don't provide support, drop me a line. I'd love to
remove a Ruby checkmark in the WO-vs-Ruby comparison.
My $0.02:
The thing I love about Ajax is that other people have written the
Javascript. I absolutely hate writing/debugging/testing on 10
different browsers/etc. Javascript.
I think that WO could actually surpass Rails in making Ajax easy to
use, because WO has an understanding of "pages as state machines" and
of a particular point in a particular page being a particular state
that Rails is missing.
I think WO could also excel in rendering pieces of pages like some
of the more advanced ajaxy stuff does: www.wetpaint.com
That is, if you look at zimbra, like Anjo pointed out, or
wetpaint.com, there's definitely this element of turning the browser
window into a Cocoa app that I find really attractive about Ajax. I
think WO could actually beat Rails at that game, but it would take
some architecture work on the WO side.
Pierce
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to archive@mail-archive.com
