By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
457,727 Members | 1,138 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 457,727 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

prototype.js library question

P: n/a
Hello,

Do you maybe know how to replace all the object content (with its <div
id="x"and </div>) using Ajax.Updater class instead of inserting
request inside it?

Best regards,
Paul Czubilinski

Jul 8 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
2 Replies


P: n/a
On Jul 8, 7:50 am, Paul Czubilinski <p...@deso.plwrote:
Hello,

Do you maybe know how to replace all the object content (with its <div
id="x"and </div>) using Ajax.Updater class instead of inserting
request inside it?
Folks here are not Prototype.js fans for many good reasons. If you
must use it...

http://www.prototypejs.org/discuss

If you aren't tied to Prototype there are many other better libraries
to use.

Peter

Jul 8 '07 #2

P: n/a

"Peter Michaux" <pe**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@x35g2000prf.googlegr oups.com...
On Jul 8, 7:50 am, Paul Czubilinski <p...@deso.plwrote:
>Hello,

Do you maybe know how to replace all the object content (with its <div
id="x"and </div>) using Ajax.Updater class instead of inserting
request inside it?

Folks here are not Prototype.js fans for many good reasons. If you
must use it...
After seeing the Prototype/Scriptaculous (sp?) combo pop up on a lot of
commercial sites recently, I looked into these libraries (and their various
mutations) and didn't come away a fan either. For one, they bastardize the
JS language, which negates its inherent portability. For two, they are
loaded with browser sniffs. Yes, I read the article by one of the authors
that sought to defend this indefensible practice, but it didn't hold water.
If you can't do something without referencing the user agent string, then
don't do it at all. And then there is the bloating issue, which proponents
of these libs will tell you is a non-issue. It is an issue. For example,
one site I looked at added roughly 150K of script to achieve nothing more
than a few special effects. Yes, they could remove white-space and turn on
http compression on their server to reduce the actual overhead, but
everything is relative. All things equal, the effects could have been done
much cheaper. On the plus side, at least they stopped using Flash for such
things.
>
http://www.prototypejs.org/discuss

If you aren't tied to Prototype there are many other better libraries
to use.
"Tied to" is apt for Prototype. The reason its users are so quick to defend
it is that they are married to it.

So what is a good, modular JS library that doesn't attempt to twist the
language? I couldn't find one, so I started cobbling together my own from
snippets I have stockpiled over the years. It is certainly a lot of work,
but at least if something breaks I will know where to look and have a good
idea what to look for. I have the presentation layer pretty well covered at
this point, but would be interested in finding a good AJAX abstraction (for
the very rare occasion that a site design warrants its use.)
Jul 9 '07 #3

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.