tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381893.post113930266125954257..comments2023-11-04T03:54:32.260-07:00Comments on Mark Holton's Weblog :: Web Application Development: Flex is not AJAXMark Holtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18031910098133967657noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381893.post-1139348764903545382006-02-07T13:46:00.000-08:002006-02-07T13:46:00.000-08:00Thanks for the comment.I didn't ever say, or imply...Thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>I didn't ever say, or imply, it was an "either or situation"<BR/><BR/>Again:<BR/>"What I'm communicating here, is that as web developers, we are doing ourselves a favor to learn both, and utilize the tools that deliver the desired functionality the most efficiently."<BR/><BR/>The two technologies are very different though, and make sense in somewhat different use Mark Holtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18031910098133967657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381893.post-1139348391078391732006-02-07T13:39:00.000-08:002006-02-07T13:39:00.000-08:00Why do you think it has to be an either/or situati...Why do you think it has to be an either/or situation?<BR/><BR/>You can mix and match html/css/javascript and flex in the same webapplication if you choose to. Maybe do one area of the site in one, another moduel in the other.<BR/><BR/>i am currently building applications in ruby-on-rails using ajax AND Flex 2.0. Communicating through "builder" generated xml, the ExternalInterface javascript Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381893.post-1139338654464470452006-02-07T10:57:00.000-08:002006-02-07T10:57:00.000-08:00Thanks for the comments. There's a place for both...Thanks for the comments. <BR/><BR/>There's a place for both "technologies" (in quotes b/c AJAX is not a technology, but more of a paradigm for using existing standards and JS). What I'm communicating here, is that as web developers, we are doing ourselves a favor to learn both, and utilize the tools that deliver the desired functionality the most efficiently. <BR/><BR/>Flex is a tremendous Mark Holtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18031910098133967657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381893.post-1139326931251664672006-02-07T07:42:00.000-08:002006-02-07T07:42:00.000-08:00hi,good food for thought...thanks. One nit: Actio...hi,<BR/><BR/>good food for thought...thanks. <BR/><BR/>One nit: ActionSctript 3 is no longer a proprietary langage. It is an implementation of the upcoming ECMAscript standard. It is out stated intention to fully and formally standardize Actionscript on the same standard the JavaScrip is based on.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>David<BR/>AdobeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381893.post-1139326471160205872006-02-07T07:34:00.000-08:002006-02-07T07:34:00.000-08:00Hehe, AJAX itself is behind the curve. Prototype ...Hehe, AJAX itself is behind the curve. Prototype based language? Been there. Asyncronous server-side call with no page refresh? Done that.<BR/><BR/>I'd argue if you are doing CF + Flex, you are insanely ahead of the curve.<BR/><BR/>...still, mad respect for anyone who can pull off an Enterprise level app with HTML + CSS + JavaScript.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381893.post-1139318945402401922006-02-07T05:29:00.000-08:002006-02-07T05:29:00.000-08:00You are definately right, flex isn't AJAX, and I a...You are definately right, flex isn't AJAX, and I am so glad of it. No, Flex doesnt exist in the relm of free and open web standards, But neither does AJAX! Anyone that has ever tried to write their own ajax call knows that you have to do something different for every browser, doesnt sound too standard to me. While Flex may be proprietary, it is at least standard, there will be documentation Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com