Rails spinoffs - Jan 2008 - Using prototype to define classes accessible by both the server-side (ASP) & client-side

Although some javascript objects are client-specific (i.e. document)
and others server-specific (i.e. Response), much of prototype.js can
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
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

I can''t say I fully understand your troubles with ASP, maybe you
should boycott the evil empire and move on to greener pastures?

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.


Hope that helps,
                   Matt






On Jan 10, 6:40 pm, iporter
<ispor...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Although some javascript objects are client-specific (i.e. document)
> and others server-specific (i.e. Response), much of prototype.js can
> 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
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Thanks Matt, I appreciate your thoughts.

On Jan 11, 2:22 pm, Matt Foster
<mattfoste...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
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
<ispor...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > Although some javascript objects are client-specific (i.e. document)
> > and others server-specific (i.e. Response), much of prototype.js can
> > 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
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

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
<isporter-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Matt, I appreciate your thoughts.
>
> On Jan 11, 2:22 pm, Matt Foster
<mattfoste...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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
<ispor...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Although some javascript objects are client-specific (i.e.
document)
> > > and others server-specific (i.e. Response), much of prototype.js
can
> > > 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
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

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, 12:25 pm, "Gareth Evans"
<agr...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
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
<ispor...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Thanks Matt, I appreciate your thoughts.
>
> > On Jan 11, 2:22 pm, Matt Foster
<mattfoste...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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
<ispor...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> > > > Although some javascript objects are client-specific (i.e.
document)
> > > > and others server-specific (i.e. Response), much of
prototype.js can
> > > > 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
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

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
<89iroc-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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"
<agr...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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
<ispor...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Thanks Matt, I appreciate your thoughts.
> >
> > > On Jan 11, 2:22 pm, Matt Foster
<mattfoste...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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
<ispor...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> 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
rubyonrails-spinoffs-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-spinoffs-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---