Topic awaiting preservation: Ajax Guestbook

Ok, I've finally made my new guestbook live. I would appreciate it if a few of you could take it out for a test drive. I've been working on this thing for the last 2 months and really learning a lot. I'm in love with XMLHttpRequest!

http://www.bugimus.com/buguest/bugGuest.html

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Thats a superb piece of work - the way the actual card(s) expand from the top left area is a thing of beauty and the grunt under the hood seems slick as anything.

Using FF on WIn XP and it works perfect.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Great!

Really nice! At first I thought it was flash, but then was shocked to find the truth. Excellent job, man. Absolutely incredible.

I saw the first version of this a while back and it's... well, simply awesome!

I ran it in Safari on OSX 10.3 and it seems to work asides from some glitches such as can't drag the cards, can't find somewhere to add a new entry.

Anyways, really cool!
/Dan

{cell 260} {Blog}
-{ ?The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it.? (-Barlow, John Perry) }-

That is very good. I have been working with XMLHTTP recently, but it is cool to see all the things you do with it.

Does anyone know if it is possible to get Opera to support XMLHTTP?

I have tried Bugimus' page in Opera 7.54u2 and 8.0 beta3 on WinXP without success. I have been unable to find a viable workaround for my own code. I know that Google used IFRAME's to emulate the XMLHTTP functionality for Google Suggest, but I was hoping that Opera 8 would support this AJAX-style coding.

Thanks for the feedback!

I'm not really in a good position to be able to solve the Safari issues because I don't have access to an apple. I would love to make it work for that platform though.

I'm going to add a "sign" button on the main menu to make that a bit more clear. Right now it's up in the right hand corner and not real prominent.

Opera? I didn't test with it yet but I'm downloading Op8 beta right now to see about it. As far as I've heard Op8 supports XMLHttpRequest.

[edit]
I just tried it is Op8 beta and it's hanging up when I try to send data back to the server. Everything works fine in Firefox and IE with the same code so I'm guessing this is an Opera weakness but it's hard to say at this point. Has anyone else around here tried to do this using Opera?
[/edit]
: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 03-28-2005 16:09)

double post?

(Edited by GRUMBLE on 03-28-2005 16:17)

yepp opera8 supports xmlhttprequest, but i too always get "Processing request" forever.

other than that, the javascript works perfectly.

very good job, bugs!

Thanks, GRUMBLE

I just took a closer look and Opera 8 is choking on the setRequestHeader line below. I don't know enough about this yet to know why that would be a problem.

if (window.XMLHttpRequest) {

  g_guestRequest = new XMLHttpRequest()

  if (g_guestRequest) {

    g_guestRequest.onreadystatechange = XMLHttpRequestHandler

    g_guestRequest.open("POST", url, true)

    g_guestRequest.setRequestHeader("Content-Type", "application/x-www-form-urlencoded")

    g_guestRequest.send(data)

}

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Nice work Bugs. As in my comment (posted), I said it looked good way back when you originally created this thing - now it's even more slick

I would be interested in seeing more demos of this stuff out there, since there's a lot of hype around this whole "AJAX" thing right now (I'm a bit cynical of the name, sorry. Marketing-ese, sounds more like a cleaning agent.. but I digress), I think people would like seeing "working, functional examples" like this. Keep it up.

Good stuff, Bugs - very nice extension of v1 of the guestbook =)

Only one minor suggestion as the icing on the cake for when you have some time on you hands, and that is having the layout / position and sizes of the cards adjust to the size of the window at least a bit as that would make it even more enjoyable on larger resoltions (like the 1400*... that I'm browsing at currently).

And Ajax actually *is* a cleaning agent:
http://ajax.de/

It's in America too, sold by Colgate.
http://www.colgate.com/app/Colgate/US/HouseholdCare/ProductRecommender/DishwashingLiquid/PDPs.cvsp?product=AjaxDishLiquidandAntibacterialHandsoap_210

---
"Consider a simple room with only four walls, a ceiling and a floor. Can you see it in your mind?s eye? You better not be able to; I haven?t specified a light source yet." - Paul Nettle

sorry to all, it's a football club

The Colgate variant is the one I'm most familiar with .. Quite amusing.

It's kind of a dumb name, but if that's what it takes for a lot of people to get hyped up about "remote scripting" tricks, then so be it.

I agree with the crowd that Ajax is an utterly dumb name for something not really new.

ajax is the ipodding of javascript. Taking an old technology that has been around for awhile, but re-packaging it in a way that is useful to alot more people than it previously was.

Sure, mp3 players had been around for ages, but with the iPod, apple made it a mass-market type thing and pushed it into the mainstream.

Thats what google did with javascript/etc, but just slapped on a new name to make it a bit more 'market friendly and buzz-word-tastic'

I kind of like the name Sure I immediately think of the cleanser, but it also helps to envision the fleet footed hero of the Trojan war of same name.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

First Google Didn't name it, adapative path did.

Second I don't think naming what is basically a single browser function the same as ipodding. Apple took an existing device and made it much better via storage size (at the time of launch) and an excellent UI and form factor.

Personally I'm not using the name Ajax until I have to, either that or I'm going to start calling the abilty to sort arrays Ass.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

bitdamaged:

quote:

---

Apple took an existing device and made it much better via storage size (at the time of launch) and an excellent UI and form factor.

---

Storage size wise, there was already some MP3 players with an HDD up to 20-30Mb when the iPod came out, and for the same capacity they were cheaper than the iPod. ... but that's another debate.

quote:

---

poi said:

Storage size wise, there was already some MP3 players with an HDD up to 20-30Mb
when the iPod came out, and for the same capacity they were cheaper
than the iPod. ... but that's another debate.

---

Yeah, but they sucked and were all ugly.

---
"Consider a simple room with only four walls, a ceiling and a floor. Can you see it in your mind?s eye? You better not be able to; I haven?t specified a light source yet." - Paul Nettle