|
I think the author's intention was to show a bit of AJAX and show how the XML nature of the AJAX allows the existing tools (browser, javascript) to do much of the work for us.
The additional error-checking and protection you discuss might have obfuscated the code, perhaps it would have made a nice appendix or next-page to show the reader what kind of protections are needed.
Leveraging existing tools incurs dependency -- for example, anyone who has said that perl is the easiest hasn't worked through a DLL-Hell to try to get back the 2-yr-old environment that made a stack of perl work. For this same reason, re-inventing a while is more work to the benefit of having no dependencies. I agree that this is a case where the dependencies add value.
Maybe that is an example that you're very suited to add to this forum. Engineers talk in terms of words, patches, and code. Care to show some code? It might help to show your point, and further assist readers of the original article.
If my words sound argumentative, it's not intended; I want to applaud the author for putting forth this work for others' benefit and to the scrutiny of the more experienced readers. Very generous!
Allan Clark
I make linux handsets; my AJAX sucks
|
Previous Message
Up
