What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Napster(R) Gift Cards view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy Twelpforce(TM) Carolers wax ecstatic about the awesomeness of a pre-paid MP3 Napster gift card.
182 Comments
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35AJAX with Flash instead of Javascript is AFAX, surely?
- wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28Ajax = Asynchronous Javascript and XML
So it would make much more sense to call this Afax. In agreement with the idea that this is Flash interacting with XML produced by some backend script. However, this is not some cool new technology. People have been using flash for years now to interact with XML to get backend data. The important part is the Asynchronous part. Is the flash being updated consistantly and asynchronously? That is where the new buzz word has an effect. - noamsml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27No, it stands for "***** Javascript and XML".
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26What in God's name is the point in this?
"I know, let's recreate a technology that already works quite well with something that even less users are likely to be able to use!"
Good thinking! - paulmdx, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28What is wrong with flash?
1) It's hard to index
2) It's proprietary
3) You need complicated tools to create it
4) Extracting content (even if allowed by the author) is difficult
5) It's larger to download
6) It's significantly harder to view on mobile devices
7) I have to download a plug-in to view it - I can't simply use a web browser
8) It's impossible to search for keywords in
If you'd like me to continue the list, I'll be happy to do so. - andrew522, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j114/andrew522/pwnd.jpg
I'm sorry but you dont get that much more pwnd without using blood or porn. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -8/+24Oh get over yourself with your holier-than-thou attitude that Flash is the bane of the Internet.
- dostoevsky, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17here is the link to actual website without webmonkey: http://www.fjax.net/
and it's not really "Flash-Ajax", more of "Flash-XML/HTML" in the traditions of Ajax :) - david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13FJAX? It appears someone doens't know what AJAX stands for if that's the acronym they came up with.
- Skeuomorph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I hear a duck.
- protocolor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12too bad AFLAX is already trademarked:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFLAX - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"One thing guys... technically you should say "ActionScript" not Flash... ActionScript being FLash's scripting language."
Yeah, but if you go around saying "AAAX", people are going to think you're a tard. :) - neave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Flash + AJAX + asynchronous XML - javascript = Flash.
- Kijael, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18So it isn 't flash, it's the developers. You don't block html because a few developers have made a hash of their site. You just don't visit.
Flash is a fantastic piece of software, that allows for some excellent interfaces. The problem is with people that just want to use it to make everything fly around the screen. The main benefit is that you don't need to work around silly browser problems, allowing you to deliver a consistent application.
1) It's hard to index
Fair enough, though it isn't impossible. That's what meta tags are for
2) It's proprietary
Not fully, any application is allowed to output flash.
3) You need complicated tools to create it.
That's because it can do some pretty complicated stuff. You need some complicated tools to view the internet in the first place.
4) Extracting content (even if allowed by the author) is difficult
This is a design problem. It is possible to give print functionality, and there are other ways to provide content to the user. The designer has to be foresighted to give them these options
5) It's larger to download
Larger than what? One of the main benefits is that it can create applications at a fraction of the size. If you embed video, large sound files or jpgs, then the size is bound to increase. But then if you do this in a web page it will do too
6) It's significantly harder to view on mobile devices
It doesn't have to be, another design issue. Flash can resize to fit a mobile device.
7) I have to download a plug-in to view it - I can't simply use a web browser
A huge percentage of browsers have Flash plugin installed by default.
8) It's impossible to search for keywords in
That's a bold statement. Maybe saying it is impossible the way you want to do it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'll have to disagree with: 5) It's larger to download.
I find vector animation a lot smaller than trying to do the same thing with an animated GIF. Flash can be smaller for certain things especially if it's replacing a bunch of JPEGs and GIFs trying to do the same thing. - ldhertert, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11They are using javascript to update the css/html I believe. The flash is just being used to parse the XML. It's actually quite a neat idea. They're using flash to get away from needing to write different workarounds for every single browser. They embed a 1x1 transparent SWF file, then interact with it with javascript. I still don't quite understand why they didn't call it FAJAX though...
And in response to the comments below, people really need to RTFA before spouting off about stuff. - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8But Flash can communicate with the server at any time it likes - what the hell is the point?
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11There's nothing I hate more than ignorant attitudes like this. Don't blame the technology, blame the poor skills of the developer. Just because Flash has been used in a website doesn't make the site inherently bad.
- Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ wldleaf
yep, I do it all the time at work.
@ everyone
One thing guys... technically you should say "ActionScript" not Flash... ActionScript being FLash's scripting language.
Besides ActionScript is almost exactly the same as Java Script... seriously. - Brigadier, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I'll bite
> 1) It's hard to index
> Fair enough, though it isn't impossible. That's what meta tags are for
And meta tags have worked so well for indexing everything else on the web...
> 2) It's proprietary
> Not fully, any application is allowed to output flash.
Thanks for giving me permission to try to reverse engineer your format. It's proprietary.
> 4) Extracting content (even if allowed by the author) is difficult
> This is a design problem. It is possible to give print functionality, and there are other ways to provide content to the user. The designer has to be foresighted to give them these options
But why does this functionality all have to be rebuilt? Flash locks up data by default. If the designer wants to then they can let some of it out.
> 7) I have to download a plug-in to view it - I can't simply use a web browser
> A huge percentage of browsers have Flash plugin installed by default.
As I keep saying everywhere I get a chance: It's not out for Linux. If I'm surfing in my browser of choice and your site uses Flash, it's totally inaccessible to me. I see nothing except maybe a box telling me to upgrade - which is impossible to do.
> 8) It's impossible to search for keywords in
> That's a bold statement. Maybe saying it is impossible the way you want to do it.
Not bold at all. Here are some other statements: I can't copy and paste text. I can't do a "Save As..." I can't use normal editting functions. Controls (list boxes, edit boxes, buttons, etc) don't work like they do elsewhere in my browser. All these are true in general unless a designer for a particular application decides and works to make it otherwise.
(I skipped the points where I either agree or don't feel like debating) - hotbutteredhtml, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Service Unavailable" - Yep, can't see the Flash anywhere.
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7He kinda has a point - until there's a usable open-source Flash Player alternative such websites won't be viewable with FOSS-only systems.
- trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"I don't see any Flash on wufoo.com."
Thats the point. - realnebby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Agreed, if there not using javascript why are they calling it Flash Javascript And XML. It should be AFAX is also is easier to pronounce.
- Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8FAJAX, then?
- gargantuan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11oh my god, I must give up my freedoms to use flash? does that mean adobe can like, silence me, or lock me up for no good reason? Or were you just being overly melodramatic. What 'freedoms' must I relinquish? Flash is great when used wisely. Anyone who says different is an ignoramus.
oh, and you free software purists are just tight. get your hands in your pockets and support developers who are trying to make a living. - trogdoor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"until there's a usable open-source Flash Player alternative such websites won't be viewable with FOSS-only systems."
There already is, libflash-mozplugin, unfortunately it only fully supports flash 6 so it won't work with thi... oh wait, yes it will. How unbelvably inconsiderate of them to make an implementation that is COMPLETELY cross platform compatible ( honestly how many AJAX sites can say that ) even with only open source software. - Greyhaven7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Flash isn't a language... ActionScript is the language you use to script in FLash... so it should technically be called AAAX. ;)
- o6uoq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Flap JAX?
- breebop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Fjax site doesn't work for me. I'm using Flock, and I'm getting a bunch of code at the top and bottom of the page saying the XML can't be parsed correctly. Isn't this the very thing this technique is supposed to resolve?
- wildleaf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8I agree - Flash has its uses. Something like this is an interesting concept on how to use a technology in a new way that has been proven with other technologies. If you have a problem with AJAX and its ideas of use, then I would suggest boycotting digg and google and a few other poignant uses of AJAX. As someone said above, using Flash (ActionScript) to parse the XML is a great way to avoid many browser bugs (that have been addressed by many Web2.0 Javascript includes - think prototype.js). Just food for thought.
Also Flash is only annoying when used the wrong way. As you have said 99% of implementations are annoying. But the annoying things usually die out on reuptable sites. Think of things like animated gifs as an example of how flash annoyingness will get popular for many, then annoy many, then die out. Just consider that. - lilzaphod, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Hey Bieber, I didn't realize that using Flash was the equivalent of what happened to William Wallace.
Adob-Media took away my ... FREEEEEEEDOOOOOOOM.
Hyperbole much?
With the advent of the Flex SDK that includes a .SWF compiler , there is a company sponsored way to write free (as in a beer, not puppy) Flash applications. ( http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flexframework2/ )
So in other words, Adobe is giving free tools and client software out to the community. You don't pay to develop the app, your users don't pay to view it. Flash doesn't display ads every time you load it. And no one is frog marching you into using the software. Anyway you slice it, it's free.
But go on hating Flash since it's the chic thing to do around here. - andreas1999, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And how are they planning on dealing with the crossdomain.xml file that stops flash from doing anything cool with cross-site xml? In other words, you can't load xml from other servers than your own, unless they have a crossdomain.xml file allowing you to do so.
At least javascript can do it without Adobe trying to stop you. - Brigadier, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@dustmop
Flash 7 supposedly works, but every site with flash that I go to asks me to upgrade to 8.
To wit: try http://www.neopets.com/ or http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/flashmap/ in fx on Linux. Neither worked the last time I tried them.
The crux of my point is really that it's not ubiquitous (which comes from the fact that only one company produces the spec and player).
@roland
Sorry, but wtf are you talking about?
HTML is not proprietary because the spec is open to anyone to implement, see http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/ . The members of the W3C also have to assert that they won't stop anyone from implementing the technology they contribute (through copyright or patent rights).
Flash is proprietary because the entire standard is owned and controlled by one company and that company decides how it's implemented and if they want to sue anyone else that tries to implement it. - marc.smith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4duplicate story from a month ago:
http://digg.com/programming/FJAX_=_better_way_to_do_AJAX_ - remiprev, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The first version wufoo had flash. Now it's only Javascript.
- rnocera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Does anyone actually read the article?
Yes, it still requires Javascript, how else do you get the HTML into the page? And yes, it's similar to Flex in that it uses Actionscript, but that's about it.
However, the site being down alreadydoesn't bode well for it's performance. - cestes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Some people really need a job. Or therapy, medication, and a significant other.
- JakeMcMahon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"...pretty nifty...flash..."
Oxymoron alert. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"My web site goes to 11."
"Why don't you just make 10 cooler and make 10 be the top number? "
"This one goes to 11" - slimc9999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you don't need sockets, and you're worried about the expense of parsing XML with JavaScript use JSON and tell FJAX or whatever to go F itself.
- seventoes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@andrew522, thats what i get too.... great XML parser. I want all of my pages to say "error"
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Once again, DIGG proves a new technology to be tried, tested, and found wanting.. I give you
http://www.fjax.net/ = SERVICE UNAVAILABLE
lol!!
Clasic AJAX triumphs again! Example: http://www.onlyriddles.com - jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the are also slow on the Windows XP64 and longhonr(i mean vista) implementations of flash too
- IngisKahn, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11It's not the bane; flash is great for some applications but I block it since 99% of the time it's annoying as hell.
- jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3no, FLEX compiles flash applications, where as FJAX uses a standard SWF as an API to standardize DOM and HTML processing on the client side.
- shrapnull, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8I thought it was a bad idea until I checked out http://wufoo.com/
That's a pretty nifty combination of flash and ajax... - valis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It is an idea that has merit. It uses Flash as a code-base rather than a presentation platform, which I think is the interesting part. If I understand correctly, the use of Flash in this method is to enhance XML parsing performance and compatibility across browsers. They make a good argument for using Flash 6, because it has an immense install base. I can't comment on its usability without playing with it, of course. There are always (and sometimes crippling) down sides to innovations.
That having been said, their site does not seem to work very well with my Firefox settings. - noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wouldn't FAJAX be a better term for it?
Pssh. - rYno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2fjax.net - Works GREAT! lol...
header top image
nav spacenav spacenav spacenav spacenav spacenav spacenav space
header bottom
Error parsing XML Data
Error parsing XML Data
Error parsing XML Data -
Show 51 - 100 of 182 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 