Talk:Ajax Framework

Don't agree with the premise of this article

I'm acquaintances with a fair few front-end web developers, and I rarely ever hear them talk about "AJAX frameworks" (first of all, because "AJAX" is usually "Ajax") - instead they talk about "JavaScript frameworks". Which makes a ton more sense, since the stuff which you most need to hide away behind a framework isn't usually the XMLHttpRequest object but all the other cross-browser crud. I suggest we quickly move this page to "JavaScript framework", and also not include any library-specific code, which should probably be on the pages for the relevant libraries: Dojo (framework), jQuery, Prototype (framework), script.aculo.us, MooTools, Yahoo! UI Library, Rico (framework) etc. --Tom Morris 17:48, 10 August 2008 (CDT)

<a href='http://www.google.com/trends?q=Ajax+framework%2C+javascript+library%2C+javascript+framework&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0'> The google no lie</a>. Just as many people are using the term 'Ajax Framework' as 'JavaScript Library', although 'Javascript Library' is gaining popularity. But of course a Javascript Library does not connote the same thing as "Ajax Framework". A Javascript library may be any grouping of Javascript Functions, for any small purpose. The term 'Javascript Framework' does connote the same thing as the first two classes of Ajax Frameworks that I have described, however it is not nearly as widely used.[Refer to the Google link] However, it doesn't not adequately describe the set of "frameworks" that create Ajax web pages through server-based coding. The most prominent of these is Asp.net AJAX. Asp.net AJAX, and PHP based things like SAJAX are "Ajax Frameworks", but not "Javascript Frameworks". The most proper term for this article would be "Cross-Browser Rich Internet Application Framework" however NO ONE would ever search for that. Yes there is some ambiguity here, but the existence of the term Ajax Framework is not one of those ambibuities.

--[[User:Michael Bonanno|Michael Bonanno] 12:48, 15 August 2008 (CDT)

jQuery describes itself as a "JavaScript Library." Prototype describes itself as a "JavaScript Framework." Scriptaculous describes itself as a "JavaScript library." YUI describes itself as a "Javascript library." Mootools descibes itself as a "Javascript framework." Dojo describes itself as a "Javascript toolkit." ExtJS describes itself as a "Javascript library." I'm inclined to agree with Tom and will likely move this to "Javascript library" and have redirects for other common names unless there's some good arguments to the otherwise, although this debate is a year old anyway.

There are also some issues with neutrality and citation in the article and I question getting into library specifics, they should instead be linked and discussed on their own page. Currently, this reads like a cross between a tutorial and marketing brochure. Lance Knifehand 06:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Renaming is very simple: "JavaScript library". Not "Javascript", not "javascript", not "javascripts" - capital J, capital S. The orthography ain't hard to get right: Google exists. And I have nothing but contempt for the empty, vacuous marketing phrase "rich Internet application (RIA)". It's utter rubbish that's pushed by Adobe and Microsoft - it's a category that Adobe basically invented to make Flash seem essential. The idea, expressed in the article, that there is some deep, metaphysical split between 'Ajax' and 'JavaScript' is ridiculous. On a technical level, Ajax is simply XMLHTTPRequest. But on a social level, the idea of Ajax is used to help people understand the best ways of using XMLHTTPRequest and JavaScript more broadly in a non-awful way. The "server-end technology adapter kits" section is also pure blather. There's a few words I can think of that can be paired with "ASP.NET AJAX" and "ambitious" doesn't immediately come to mind. Basically, all you need to say about Ajax and the back-end is that if your code is badly structured and written by someone who doesn't understand what HTTP is all about, you'll need to sort yourself out.

Basically, we need a good article about the cluster of things like jQuery, Prototype, Dojo, ExtJS, Moo Tools, Scriptaculous etc. and this article needs to basically be deleted and pointed there. I'd write it myself, but I find the topic quite dull, to be honest (I use jQuery and Rails and have no interest in them beyond the fact that they let me build websites). –Tom Morris 06:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

might as well list them ALL

article would benefit from an updated something like the one found here: http://www.infoq.com/news/ajaxian-surveyPat Palmer 14:03, 16 August 2008 (CDT)

DOM/CSS Manipulation Methods

I'm not sure who put these in, although I can see who removed them. Without knowing the specifics of these events, if they are not appropriate for the main article, would it be reasonable to put them in an article-specific subpage?

Howard C. Berkowitz 00:16, 17 August 2008 (CDT)

These lists of objects, events, etc., impact the reading of the article; they are too long for the format of a main article. There are two ways to reduce their visual impact:

• Put them into multi-column list/table format
• Move them to article-specific subpages. Create these by going to the talk page, clicking on the circled M to get to the Metadata page, edit metadata, and put the subpage names in the designated article-specific subpage fields. Save the metadata. Go to the main article, cut the list, and save. Click on the subpage tab at the top and paste the list into the appropriate subpage, and save.

I'm not sure how well they serve as an example without additional information, but I've never claimed to be an Ajax framework expert. On the other hand, the person who goes to look up the Ajax framework article is probably doing so because he or she is not an Ajax framework expert.

Howard C. Berkowitz 14:17, 17 August 2008 (CDT)