Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

COWS Ajax - Ajax Evolved 142

Posted by kdawson from the cows-2.0 dept.
nuttzy writes, "COWS Ajax takes over where Ajax leaves off. The web has gone through a great period of experimentation and there is now a dizzying array of frameworks, add-ons, howtos, and books. The common drawback these Ajax aids all fail to overcome is that, even with aids, apps take a long time to create and debug. Many times someone has already created a great tool and you'd really just rather use theirs instead of reinventing it (especially if it's a Google, Yahoo, or other trusted player). Wouldn't it be great to drop in a single line of code to gain a huge amount of functionality that frees you for something else? You can't do that with Ajax, but you can with COWS (Changeable Origin Web Services) Ajax. Now highly interactive third party services like SpellingCow are possible."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

COWS Ajax - Ajax Evolved More

COWS Ajax - Ajax Evolved

Comments Filter:

  • link to article (Score:1, Informative)

    by nuttzy ( 877548 ) *
    Opps! I guess I need a Mulligan... I meant to link to an introductory article [sourceforge.net] [sourceforge] I had written. BTW, this comment was spell checked as I type with the SpellingCow favelet! -Nuttzy

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Opps indeed! This comment was spell checked by Firefox 2.0...looks like it works a bit better than SpellingCow!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by beef3k ( 551086 )
      No. You meant to shamelessly promote your own company and product on /.

  • cool. (Score:2, Funny)

    by celardore ( 844933 )
    Now the web will really mooooove forwards!

  • COWS Ajax (Score:5, Funny)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:41PM (#16039642)

    Sounds good. Developers should milk it for all its worth.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by inKubus ( 199753 )
      I think I'll moove my site over to this before I get "sent to the pasture" by my boss.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tbone1 ( 309237 )
        I think I'll moove my site over to this before I get "sent to the pasture" by my boss.

        Well, it's udderly obvious that your boss certainly has a steak in your technology knowledge.

    • Dejavascript Vu (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee ( 775178 )
      A new technology which allows developers to just pull together complete applications from pre-fabricated blocks. Where have I heard this before a million times? Can't remember, because all those others stopped being relevant years ago. Why would this be any different?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by 4of12 ( 97621 )

        A new technology which allows developers to just pull together complete applications from pre-fabricated blocks. Where have I heard this before a million times?

        From a would-be vendor of pre-fabricated blocks that would like to sell all the blocks to you, to any other would-be block developer, have exclusive control over all future block development and hopefully take a small slice of pie from the huge user base of endusers of the application you develop with pre-fabricated blocks.

        The whole venture needs t

    • That's udderly ridiculous.

  • Not a developer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:42PM (#16039645) Homepage
    But if a dev in my team would ask this to implement I would ask a few questions:
    - Does it work if the embedded page is offline?
    - Does it slow down if the embedded page is under heavy load from somebody else?
    - Does it break if some standard/lib/implementation/EULA changes?
    - Can we customize it to our GUI?
    - In the example given, how does it play with browserspellcheckers like the one coming in FF2.0?
    - Why are we paying you if all you do is reuse thirdparty code wich doesnt belong to the company?

    You get the idea. Not saying its a bad idea but I have my concerns and so would a lot of managers/devs. At least the ones I have the pleasure to work with.

    • Re:Not a developer (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Directrix1 ( 157787 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:49PM (#16039677)
      - Why are we paying you if all you do is reuse thirdparty code wich doesnt belong to the company?

      You ever heard of libraries? Sheesh, you should pay the man more if he found a way to increase productivity for next to nothing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lispy ( 136512 )
        I understand the concept. But companies are kinda greedy when it gets to owning their proprietary stuff. Well, at least thats what its like in the company I work for.
        • You need to become one with the concept of "Core Competency"

          Is your company a spell-checker company?

          If not then what does it gain you to develop your own spell-checker?

          How much do you gain by not spending the time/effort to develop your own spell-checker?

          s/spell-checker/$non_core_technology/

          You sound like a PHB to me: all soundbite no thought.
      • Indeed, I loooove having a 200K javascript .js file download when I am browsing some site on a slow connection, especially when 199K of that file is just library code that the parent website does not even use, but they wanted one strange obscure function and didnt bother hacking apart the full library.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by caluml ( 551744 )
          What are these "slow connections" of which you speak?

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward
            What are these "slow connections" of which you speak?

            The ones in Alaska. They're still stuck on old tube technology, while the rest of us have dump trucks.
        • Which begs the question: Isn't it possible to just link to that source on the library's homepage, so it can be cached across various AJAX pages? Slow computers would become more of a problem than slow connections, then, as you have to parse the entire JS file and store it somewhere.

          Seriously, pick something else that actually deserves your hate -- like Flash.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by HeroreV ( 869368 )
          Then you must really hate digg.
        • Is it meant to be a dynamic full featured rendering engine? Maybe it is, but AJAX should clean itself up from the kind of code that increases rendering time. Did anyone try using firefox's extensions on a slow linux box? Or even on Windows, I often have to start FF in safe mode just to get a clean start.

          the famous google analytics also stuffs 18kb of Javascript crap to the client's computer (doesn't bother bandwidth on target site though), and forces a cookie rendering, all this done in client-side javas

    • Re:Not a developer (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @01:43AM (#16042296) Homepage

      Wow. That last question of yours would make some developers -- the best ones -- walk away from the job.

      Does it work if the embedded page is offline?

      It's more like a remotely-hosted library. And no, the page would likely NOT work if that other server was down. A good developer could probably add some code to check the remote site and disable certain features on-the-fly if needed. I've done that for a lot of Salesforce stuff I do. Not too awful.


      Does it slow down if the embedded page is under heavy load from somebody else?

      Seems like it would.


      Does it break if some standard/lib/implementation/EULA changes?

      Not sure, because I don't know what you're referring to. Do you mean, what happens if you change a library on your own server? Probably shouldn't hurt -- it's all client-side JavaScript. If you mean, what happens if the site that hosts the JavaScript code changes a license or how a library works, then yes, that could likely screw you up.


      Can we customize it to our GUI?

      Looks like a qualified yes.


      In the example given, how does it play with browserspellcheckers like the one coming in FF2.0?

      It's not aware of the spellchecker in Firefox 2.0. But neither are any of the other spelling tools. This spelling tool works live on the text, and if you had Firefox 2.0 spellchecking it also, you'd simply have 2 tools running spellchecks. That could make for some interesting interface weirdness, but I doubt it would hurt anything.


      Why are we paying you if all you do is reuse thirdparty code wich doesnt belong to the company?

      That question is so completely insulting to a developer -- it so trivializes their attempt to do something smart and useful for you -- that if you asked that question, developer morale would immediately plummet. If you have ever asked such a question in the past, you need to know that your company has lost productivity because of it. Even if it never resulted in a missed deadline. Once you insult your developers, they're not going to want to work hard for you. They're going to stop caring. Do something smart and get insulted? OK, stop trying to be smart. If you've ever had to limit your scope or drop features or push out a deadline or worse, and such a thing happened after you asked such a question, now you know why. If you've ever released something that was buggier than people expected, or more difficult to refactor than the developers expected, you can probably bet that a member of your team was insulted and stopped caring.

      Any question that is basically a "sounds like you're useless" kind of question is self-destructive to ask. Anyone with self-esteem will not accept it. You know how useful your developers are by their output. Do they hit deadlines? Do they build the things that are needed? Is the uptime good? Is the bug count low? Are the customers happy? Think about it. How are you going to feel if the developer replies to you by saying, "all you seem to do is push pencils around, so why are we paying you again?"

      (And if you're inclined to respond by saying, "Unfair question, because I don't just push pencils, I provide real value!" ...then you understand the argumentative feeling you've instilled in your developers.)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lispy ( 136512 )
        That question is so completely insulting to a developer -- it so trivializes their attempt to do something smart and useful for you -- that if you asked that question, developer morale would immediately plummet. If you have ever asked such a question in the past, you need to know that your company has lost productivity because of it. Even if it never resulted in a missed deadline. Once you insult your developers, they're not going to want to work hard for you. They're going to stop caring. Do something smar
  • This will be easier to assess when we know more: would the team behind this care to write an article for Dion Hinchcliffe's AJAXWorld Magazine [ajaxworldmagazine.com]? He can be easily reached, just Google him.

  • drawback (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The common drawback these Ajax aides all fail to overcome is that, even with aides, apps take a long time to create and debug.

    And there I was, thinking that the common drawback was the lack of accessibility for disabled people and those of us who like to use links or the back button...

  • Fatal Flaw? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WebHostingGuy ( 825421 ) * on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:45PM (#16039664) Homepage Journal
    Great concept, but unless the server hosting the script has enough bandwidth and CPU to handle the requests or the the embedded script will never run. This will always be the fatal flaw in concepts like this.
    • Personally, I would rather develop a generic web service then use AJAX to combine it into a website. I wouldn't depend on third-party web services, unless it is part of Google, Amazon, etc. Either way, it is an interesting model that I will be looking into. Plus if people open sourced these web services you could install them on machines you control and benefit from it with only deploying and one line of javascript.

      • Re:Fatal Flaw? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by gregmac ( 629064 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:27PM (#16040142) Homepage
        I was actually thinking that one of the 'benefits' of this technique is that you could release a tool for people to use WITHOUT releasing the source (or backend database, or any other tools/data used). This is more of a benefit to the Googles and Yahoos, or the guy that wants to eventually make money off this tool, not the end-developer integrating it.

        Overall, it seems to me like a solution to a problem that just doesn't exist. There are already ways to access web services from the server-side (SOAP, XML-RPC, REST, and so on). To make use of these sources with AJAX, you just need to code some AJAX glue to tie it together. Using the toolkits that most languages have now, this can literally be 5 or 10 lines of code.

        You also get to control the code that gets returned - set your own timeout (server-side) for fetching data from the web service; not have to worry about the hosting site going down and possibly breaking your app; not worrying about the remote end getting comprimised (since it would be a bright shiny target, and you don't know anything about their security); not worry about them shutting down operations, switching to a pay-per-use model (see above), changing the API in a non-BC way, etc.

  • I want to make the obligatory cow jokes, but none come to mind. This looks interesting to me because my previous attempts at AJAX have ended in frustration. I'm not a super web code slinger, so anything that automates the process would be welcome.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by naoursla ( 99850 )
      ATLAS [asp.net] also automates AJAX development.

      The last part of this video [microsoft.com] shows an asp.net web page being AJAX enables (although ATLAS is not asp.net specific).

  • if Craig Nuttal is reading this... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bunions ( 970377 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:47PM (#16039673)
    Next time you release an API, don't tell us "Instead of sorting through the techno-babble, let's just say [whatever]." This phrase immediately engages my bullshit sensors. You've apparently got a nice wrapper around the cross-site problems, just say that. Anyone who understands will be interested, anyone who doesn't won't care either way.
  • The Widget mechanism in TurboGears is intended to address the issue of reuse of 3rd-party AJAX code. How does this differ?

  • Cows (Score:5, Funny)

    by David_Bloom ( 578245 ) <slashdot@3lesson.org> on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:59PM (#16039717) Homepage
    You have two cows. They eat AJAX and die.

  • Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zaajats ( 904507 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @04:59PM (#16039720)

    From the spell checker:

    "You won't be able to reenable it without reloading the page"

    That's so very AJAX.

  • DO NOT USE THIS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 04, 2006 @05:02PM (#16039738)
    Jacquesm posting as AC because I'm travelling, please do NOT USE THIRD PARTY JAVASCRIPTS.


    It really is asking for trouble, once you have third party javascript on your site you are
    basically at the mercy of whoever wrote that javascript.


    They can do nice stuff, and not so nice stuff with your end users (popups, form content
    hijacking and so on).


    And possibly lots of stuff that I have not even thought of. Also, they're pretty much
    in control of the timing on your site, some browsers do not display the page until all
    java script has loaded and if you are loading it from a remote server then you are
    basically as slow as that server.


    • everyone delete your copies of prototype.

      Your argument that "omg, the 3rd party tools can do whatever they want" also applies to any code you use. It's made even more [fill-in-your-own-derogatory-adjective] because it's pretty easy to find any naughtiness on the part of javascript code.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        he clearly meant javascript that is hosted by a 3rd party, not all 3rd party libraries.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bunions ( 970377 )
          argh. duh. I apparently ate a brain tumor for breakfast, please disregard my previous post.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by naoursla ( 99850 )
            No. The original poster just did not explain himself clearly. I had the same interpretation at first too. Then I realized that even an AC couldn't be that stupid and he meant to say something else.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by thelost ( 808451 )
      same goes for third party web apps, but are you telling everyone who uses slashcode to drop it and roll their own?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anthony Boyd ( 242971 )
        Slashcode is code that you copy onto your own server and use under your own control. He is talking about remotely hosted code. In other words, this cow code stays on a 3rd party's server. You do not get to control it or custom-rebuild it. It is very different from the Slashcode model. Thus, your questions and concerns are inapplicable.
      • same goes for third party web apps, but are you telling everyone who uses slashcode to drop it and roll their own?

        Since the third-party javascript loads each time you're dependent on it not ever changing, even if they're not malicious changes. And if they are, well, you're screwed.

    • It really is asking for trouble, once you have third party javascript on your site you are
      basically at the mercy of whoever wrote that javascript.

      They can do nice stuff, and not so nice stuff with your end users (popups, form content
      hijacking and so on)

      Yes, what you really mean is remotely hosted JavaScript apps are problematic. Understood.

      And you seem to be correct that by using such a remotely hosted service, you open yourself up to popups or other unwanted ads, at least in this case. Here's a quote fro

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by julesh ( 229690 )
      Agreed. I've been looking for a way of loading data from a different domain to the source document for some time now, but this isn't it. This is a security hole waiting to happen:

      1. Create hugely popular web application and host it on your own domain
      2. Convince web designers to link your application into their sites by adding script tags that load the code from your domain
      3. Wait until a large number of popular sites implement it
      4. Change your script to harvest these sites' users' usernames and passwords.
  • If we become used to loading random pieces of code from 3rd parties and injecting it into legitimate web pages, how long will it be before someone skeaks in a nice password sniffer or some such? I can already envision it: "This favelet makes logging into your bank so much easier" yeah right *for them*.
    Besides, this stuff does not support Opera well.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by nuttzy ( 877548 ) *

      With anything on the net, you should only be running code from a trusted source. All sorts of nasty things can happen just by visiting a scammers website (XSS+phishing combo attacks and such). Obviously COWS Ajax introduces another layer of concern, but it can be mitigated by running tools/apps from trusted sources only (as I state in the opening blurb). If someone has a vested interest in offering a tool, then that should reduce the odds of a scam. There's a wealth to be gained from 3rd parties... just

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gregmac ( 629064 )

        Obviously COWS Ajax introduces another layer of concern, but it can be mitigated by running tools/apps from trusted sources only (as I state in the opening blurb).

        To a point. The sites that are serving up this code will quickly become a target of crackers, as the only thing better than exploting one web server and putting your phishing code into their site is exploting one server and putting code into their site that's served up on hundreds or thousands of other websites.

  • Long to develop? What? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mortonda ( 5175 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @05:12PM (#16039776)
    The common drawback these Ajax aids all fail to overcome is that, even with aids, apps take a long time to create and debug.


    What in the world is that supposed to mean? I implemented a autocomplete search text box in only a few minutes using RoR. It really is that simple. It has a rich interface to create all sorts of ajax effects, useful ones that reduce traffic to/from the server.

    Also, debugging is a breeze with the Firebug plugin for firefox; you can see exactly what is getting sent to the server and what is returned.

    Moooove along, nothing to see here. (Sorry, couldn't resist)
  • This looks like a neat concept, but sort of seems like a hack around the existing security model. Frankly, I'm of two minds. On one hand, I like the idea of being able to tie together multiple hosted javascripts from other parties without having to install and configure them on my server. (plug - I mentioned this idea in an AJAX discussion on http://webdevradio.com/ [webdevradio.com] a couple months ago). On the other hand, 'same-origin' policy exists for a reason (not that I agree with it) and it seems like relying on a

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kap1 ( 164828 )
      Third-party source scripts have been used forever, most notably for ad servers. You break that and you have to provide an alternative way of including dynamic ads on the page. Remember, the Web still runs on advertising dollars.
  • From the website:
    Uses no resources

    Excellent. So you've finally perfected producing something from nothing? Brilliant, my man! Although with such a discovery you'd think you could do better than a spell check.

  • one word: Echo2 (Score:4, Informative)

    by master_p ( 608214 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @05:30PM (#16039851)
    the echo2 library is an Ajax library which makes web application development as easy as desktop application development; it is an all-Java framework with no need to write even one line of XML/HTML/JSP/other. You can find it here:

    http://www.nextapp.com/platform/echo2/echo/ [nextapp.com]

  • Having recently re-written from scratch a very large project with two or more PHP developers and myself as the only front-end designer, I've found Ajax to be the fastest way to develop web apps for in-house use. If you write a spec for data I/O, then follow it exactly, the front end can be developed without the back end using sample data. The back end can be developed without the front end, since simulated posts/gets can be done to verify that the XML (or JSON or text or whatever) is valid. That means th

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Shados ( 741919 )
      The way you're developing apps has little to do with Ajax, and more with using the correct design... Any half decent application (not just web apps...ANY APPS, aside for very specialized stuff, and even then) should be like that... separating everything so that the front end and the back end (and the data access layer, and the security, and the validation, and...and...and...) are separated, so that you know exactly where any problems are, how to fix them, that fixing them usualy won't break anything else (u

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AuMatar ( 183847 )
        Yup, its called "design". Its becoming a lost art, the current buzzword development models (XP, most other agile techniques) try and avoid doing it. And they all pay for their mistake in the end.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bunions ( 970377 )
          > the current buzzword development models (XP, most other agile techniques) try and avoid doing it

          You either don't or won't understand current development models. Agile methods have nothing to do with avoiding good software design - that's ridiculous on the face of it.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AuMatar ( 183847 )
            Try again- XP specifically espouses skipping design and going straight into coding. And they all go for rapid refactoring and constantly changing interfaces. Of course, any shop that actually uses them ends up getting FUBAR software anyway.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by bunions ( 970377 )
              You're misinterpreting the 'get code right away' mindset with 'get it done quick-and-dirty' mindset. Design and rapid iteration are not mutually exclusive, and in fact one re-enforces the other, since rapid iteration exposes poor design and good design enables rapider(?) iteration. There are some people who confuse the two, but there's always someone who won't understand any particular engineering process.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by AuMatar ( 183847 )
                I'm not misinterpreting the two, the two are the exact same. "Agile development" is good old seat of your pants programming wrapped in a cloud of buzzwords. And the ends results are the same- buggy, hard to maintain, overly expensive software.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by bunions ( 970377 )
                  If you really want to believe that, I certainly won't stand in your way. Enjoy your ignorance, I'm sure being right is worth it.

  • Sounds like just a toolkit to me. One implementation among many. A simple Ajax implementation isn't even 20 lines of code client side, and then whatever server side code is needed to perform the necessary functions.

    I find it ironic that their first example of COWS Ajax is a spell checker, which my Firefox already has built-in, client side, for ANY form field on ANY website.

  • Old trick, new buzzword (Score:4, Informative)

    by kap1 ( 164828 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @05:46PM (#16039930) Homepage
    Ouch. Adding a script tag dynamically is old hat in Ajax. See the DOM Based On-Demand Javascript [ajaxpatterns.org] pattern.

    In fact, there are a number of project under way that use dynamic script injection to emulate cross-domain XHR. See http://ajaxian.com/archives/jsonp-json-with-paddin g [ajaxian.com]

    But worse yet, the argument that developing web applications with Ajax is hard is a straw man. Imagine you had to design a desktop GUI by twiddling with the screen bits directly or, worse yet, implementing application logic in the graphics controller. Blech!

    That's the situation with Ajax and webapps right now [pathf.com]: writing code in the wrong places and at the wrong level of abstraction.

    If you want to simplify how you write webapps using Ajax, try a server side framework like Echo2 or ZK. These allow you to write webapps much like a desktop GUI while working in only one language context -- Java on the Server side.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by julesh ( 229690 )
      The problem with this approach is that you have to trust the domain you're querying.

      What if you can't do that for some reason?

      I think a cross-domain XHR would be much more useful than this pattern, but nobody seems to want to give us that.
  • It would not be better to use the browser to show only HTML, extend HTML document oriented tags with application oriented tags, SVG and use a protocol designed for applications not one for download documents? A protocol like X11 but with HTML, DOM nodes and DOM modifications. A stateful protocol without cookies, binary, designed for minimizing the amount of data traffic needed between server and client. The server sends HTML pages and DOM modifications to the client/browser at any moment and the cliente/bro

  • Really bad idea! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mrsbrisby ( 60242 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @05:50PM (#16039958) Homepage
    We're looking at the worst kind of "copy and paste coding" here: the kind that can change at any time in the future. If you can't write a spellchecker, and you can't copy one from someplace else, you're going to look mighty stupid when the cow-speller site goes down, and you can't fix it.

    Seriously, by doing this, I'm not only trusting this bovine-fixated individual to not only (a) never change his API, (b) always be up, (c) never do evil things with my data, but also (d) actively prevent evil things from being done with my data.

    Consider for a moment that you write an email client that "leverages" this technology. In this situation, not only are you handing your logs, you're also potentially passing your customer's email and passwords to this cow-speller.

    Bad fucking idea...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by magerquark.de ( 466363 )
      Hey, but we already did look stupid when Google Analytics was down the last time and all of our websites were slow to access and we couldn't fix it, didn't we?
  • I'm sorry, but it hurts to see this useless ugly framework /.'ted over a deserving project like jQuery!?! There already exist many similar and more elegant, mature, and well tested "web services".

    And to call;

    http://cows-ajax.sourceforge.net/includes/sc_ayt.j s [sourceforge.net]

    a web service is outlandish. I give the 34k above include an F minus. The dict should be a "web service" & remain on server. !XSS

  • Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ErGalvao ( 843384 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @06:00PM (#16040010) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't it be great to drop in a single line of code to gain a huge amount of functionality that frees you for something else?
    Actually my answer is "nope! not really!". Coders - as the term implies - like to code, not to drop a single line and watch it gain functionality without knowing what's happening behind the scenes. Coders ARE behind the scenes, so this cow can be good for companies who aren't involved in web developing or programming of any kind, but not for us, programmers. We code. There isn't such a thing as "something else" for us, but hey, thanks for your concern =P
    • >but not for us, programmers. We code. There isn't such a thing as
      >"something else" for us, but hey, thanks for your concern =P

      Which is why I do all my data access code in assembler ;)
  • 'especially if it's a Google, Yahoo, or other trusted player.'

    Just make sure you unplug your microphone first.

    Having the motto 'Do no evil' makes me sure they won't do anything I wouldn't want after listening to my conversation. I know how seriously employees take their mottos, and wouldn't it be evil, to some, not to not take an opportunity to increase investors returns.
  • To be able to spell check through AJAX, wouldn't you need to send every word back to their servers as they return and tell you which one's to highlight and which words to use?

    Given that, it's rather scary where I'd want to use this spellchecker on. I would never use spellchecker if my document was being sent from Word back to the Office group's spell checking server. Some things like these a crucial to be on the client side.
  • ROFL, Safari is not that uncomplient that it should not work, IMHO.

    angel'o'sphere
    • And when you use Firefox, and hit the checkbox for disabeling spell chekcing, it says you need to reload the page to reenable it .... how AJAX like is that, lol.

      angel'o'sphere
      • And if you do that in Konqueror it then falls into an infinite loop of popping up with that alert box and refuses to work any further. What an amazing utility !
  • The SpellingCow demo doesn't seem to work in Safari. Too bad. I wonder if that's because Apple's built in spell check interferes with it? I tried turning Apple's off, but it still doesn't seem to work. Bummer.
  • If you really want too know what it is all about check http://cows-ajax.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]. From that domain, "Instead of each site owner making their own tools, now a single author can make and distribute a cool tool or service that is easily installed on countless sites with the simple addition of one or two lines of code." It's really for lazy webmasters who want ajax gadgets and gizmos with as little actual ajax as possible. This is done by linking to an external site. You still have to learn the COWS API

  • AJAX for lazy (Score:2, Informative)

    by nascarguy27 ( 984493 )
    If you really want too know what it is all about check http://cows-ajax.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]. From that domain, "Instead of each site owner making their own tools, now a single author can make and distribute a cool tool or service that is easily installed on countless sites with the simple addition of one or two lines of code." It's really for lazy webmasters who want ajax gadgets and gizmos with as little actual ajax as possible. This is done by linking to an external site. You still have to learn the COWS API

  • Light fingers... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kap1 ( 164828 ) on Monday September 04, 2006 @09:20PM (#16041012) Homepage
    Looks like SpellingCow was lifted from another project without attribution (http://me.eae.net/archive/2006/09/04/spellingcow/ ). This whole post/project smells fishy.
  • When I go to the COWS demo page and click on the button to activate the spell checker, it politely craps out with the err msg "window.launch_spellingcow is not a function"

    Firefox 1.5.0.6 on XP Pro

  • WhatWG (Score:2)

    by XO ( 250276 )
    Or, you could use Opera, and get WhatWG "standards", that allow the web server to push to the clients, instead of having the clients regularly request stuff from the server, and just clean up that way. Much better.

  • Try Wt [sourceforge.net], its called the "Qt" of the web. It even uses signal and slots for event handling! Never has programming complex and highly-interactive web applications been this easier with this library. It is a C++ library and allows you to build high-performance AJAX web apps without ever writing a line of HTML, Javascript, XML, or even learning XmlHTTP. The library takes care of these complexities the same way Qt hides Xt/Xlib or Win32 primitives from the developer.

    You may like Wt if you think programming we

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close