I am building a feed like application with infinite scroll inside my native Android application using webview. I first tried Ionic framework but really disappointed with performance.
I am now thinking of developing it in pure JQuery and responsive HTML/CSS to achieve superior performance. One thing I am considering is weather to emit HTML or JSON from the server side APIs.
Emitting JSON means client side DOM manipulation which can again hurt performance. I am looking for maximum performance.
Whereas, I am not very sure emitting HTML is a very good idea for better maintainability of this application.
What do you guys recommend?
Injecting JSON should be a better solution.
In case some manipulation or operation on data is required in a
later phase of development.
Possible security issue.You are mixing control(tags) and data. By preventing inline script execution you can protect against attacks to the most extend.
This said if properly implemented and for the right reasons HTML might not be a total bad choice. But, the performance over-head might not be the right reason. But then again I haven't tested to confirm this.
You can also have a look at this SO question.
Related
In recent times JavaScript frameworks for server-side rendering became popular. For example Next.js and Nuxt.js.
I wonder: Does those frameworks have any special benefit over established, pure backend technologies (Python Django, Ruby on Rails, PHP Laravel, ...)?
Or is it just for using the technology, you are known from the frontend, at the backend too? So that you don't have to switch between different languages.
The primary advantage of frameworks like Nuxt.js is that they implement server-side rendering of client-side framework code. (In the case of Nuxt.js it's Vue.js, but there are ones for React and Angular [in fact, I think there is probably more than one for each of them].)
You write your code using the client-side framework, and you can deploy it:
client-side, or
server-side for a static site, or
a combination of both
...all with the same technologies (including JavaScript rather than [say] PHP, but also the same framework tech).
Server-side rendering lets you present something meaningful to bots, or pre-bake common page views rather than rendering them on the client, or load a static version quickly via edge-cached resources then "hydrate" it to make it dynamic, ...
The purpose of server-side rendering in the world of React is to solve the problem of getting content to the user as quickly as possible, not so much because there are other backend technologies of different programming languages we don't want to bother with, after all, I have put together server-side rendering and non-server-side rendering React applications that have an Express server, so it all can be done with just JavaScript.
Now, just saying that it's to solve the problem of getting content to the user as quickly is possible may not mean anything if you don't understand that the browser requests a page...and then we wait...the browser requests a JS file...and then we wait...React app boots, it requests json from backend...and then we wait...and finally the content is visible.
Now this is not happening in hours or minutes but seconds to milliseconds, but that can make a huge difference in the success of a business. Perhaps this article from Fast Company may make the point:
https://www.fastcompany.com/1825005/how-one-second-could-cost-amazon-16-billion-sales
These big retailers have proven that loading a page as quickly as possible leads to improved conversion rates and increased user satisfaction, therefore it's in our best interest as engineers to figure out some way to condense down this loading process to be as quickly as possible and thus we have server-side rendering.
We want to get content visible to the user as quickly as possible. We want one request and...boom! the user can start enjoying the application.
My PHP template looks like this:
$html=file_get_contents("/path/to/file.html");
$replace=array(
"{title}"=>"Title of my webpage",
"{other}"=>"Other information",
...
);
foreach(replace AS $search=>$replace){
$html=str_replace($search,$replace,$html);
}
echo $html;
I am considering switching to a javascript/ajax template system. The AJAX will fetch the $replace array in JSON format and then I'll use javascript to replace the HTML.
The page would then be a plain .html file and a loading screen would be shown until the ajax was complete.
Is there any real advantages to this or is the transition a waste of time?
A few of the reasons I think this will be beneficial:
Page will still load even if the Mysql or PHP services are down. If the ajax fails I can handle it with an error message.
Bot traffic (and anything else that doesnt run JS) will cause very little load to my server since the ajax will never be sent.
Please let me know what your thoughts are.
My 2cents is it is better to do the logic on the template side (javascript). If you have a high traffic site you can off load some of the processing to each computer calling the site. Maybe less servers.
With Javascript frameworks like AngularJs the template stuff is pretty simple and efficient. And the framework will do caching for you.
Yes, SEO can be an issue with certain sites. There at proxy tools you can put in place that will render the site and return the static html to the bot. Plus I think some bots render javascript these days.
Lastly, I like to template on the front-end because I like the backend to be a generic data provider (RESTful API). This way I can build a generic backend that drives web / mobile and other platforms in a generic way. The UI logic can be its separate thing in javascript.
But it comes down to the design needs of your application. I build lots of Software as a service applications so a single page application works well for me.
I've worked with similar design pattern in other projects. There are several ways to do this and the task would involve managing multiple project or application modules. I am assume you are working with a team of developers and not using either PHP or JavaScript MVC framework.
PHP Template
For many reasons, I'm against using “search and replace” method especially using server-side scripting language to parse HTML documents as a templating kit.
Why?
As you maintain business rules and project becomes larger, you will
find yourself reading through a long list of regular expressions,
parse HTML into DOM, and/or complicated algorithms for searching
nodes to replace with correct text(s).
If you had a placeholder, such as {title}, that would help the
script to have fewer search and replace expressions but the design
pattern could lead to messy sharing with multiple developers.
It is ok to parse one or two HTML files to manage the output but not
the entire template. The network response could be slower with
multiple and repetitive trips to server and that's just only for
template. There could be other scripts that is also making trips to
the server for different reason unrelated to template.
AJAX/JavaScript
Initially, AJAX with JavaScript might sound like a neat idea but I'm still not convinced.
Why?
You can't assume web browser is JavaScript-enabled in every mobile
or desktop. You might need to structure the HTML template in few
ways to manage the output for non-JavaScript browsers. You might
need to include <noscript> and/or <iframe> tags on every page. And,
managing alternative template for non-JavaScript browser can be
tedious.
Every web browser interpret JavaScript differently. Most developers
should know few differences between IE, FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and
to name few. You might need to create multiple JavaScript files to
detect then load JavaScript for that specific web browser. You
update one feature, you have to update script for all web browsers.
JavaScript is visible in page source. I wouldn't want to display
confidential JavaScript functions that might include credentials,
leak sensitive data about web services, and/or SQL queries. The idea
is to secure your page as much as possible.
I'm not saying both are impossible. You could still do either PHP or JavaScript for templating.
However, my “ideal” web structure should consist of a reliable MVC like Zend, Spring, or Magnolia. Those MVC framework include many useful features such as web services, data mapping, and templating kits. Granted, it's difficult for beginners with configuration requirements to integrate MVC into your project. But in the end, you could delegate tasks in configurations, MVC concepts, custom SQL queries, and test cases to developers. That's my two cents.
I think the most important aspects you forgot are:
SEO : What about search engine bots ? They wont be able to index your content if it is set by javascript only.
Execution and Network Latency : When your service is working, the browser will wait until the page is loaded (let's say 800ms) before making the extra Ajax calls to get your values. This might add an extra 500ms to get it (depending on network speed and geographic location...). If you have sent all the generated data by your server, you would have spent only ~1ms more to prepare the complete response. You would have a lot of waiting on a blank page.
Caching : You could cache the generated pages on your web app. That way your load will be minimized as well. And also, if you still want to deliver content while your backend services (MySQL/PHP..) are down you could even use Apache or Nginx caching.
But I guess it really depends on what you want to do.
For fast and simple pages, which seems to be your case, stick with backend enhancements.
For a dynamic/interactive app which can afford loading times, and doesn't care about SEO, you can delegate most things to the front-end. But then use an advanced framework like Angular, to handle templating, caching, etc...
I'm writing Angular.js application. I want it to be really fast, therefore I serve it completely generated server-side when it is initially loaded. After that every change should be handled client-side by Angular with asynchronous communication with server.
I have ng-view attribute on central <div>. But now Angular regenerates content of this <div> even on first load, before clicking any link. I don't want this behavior because then the server-side generation of page is useless.
How to achieve that?
Although Gloopy's suggestion will work in some cases, it will fail in others (namely ng-repeat). AngularJS does not currently have the ability to render on the server, but this is something that (as far as I know) no other JavaScript framework does either. I also know that server-side rendering is something that the AngularJS developers are looking into, so you may yet see it in the not-too-distant future. :)
When you say you want the application to be "really fast," you should consider where exactly you want this speed. There are a lot of places to consider speed, such as time it takes to bootstrap the app, time it takes to respond, resource intensiveness, etc (you seem to be focusing on bootstrap time). There are often different trade-offs that must be made to balance performance in an application. I'd recommend reading this response to another question on performance with AngularJS for more on the subject: Angular.js Backbone.js or which has better performance
Are you actually running into performance issues, or is this just something you predict to be a problem? If it's the later, I'd recommend building a prototype representative of your type of application to see if it really is an issue. If it's the former and it's taking your app too long to bootstrap on the client side, there may be some optimizations that you can make (for instance, inlining some model data to avoid an additional round trip, or using Gloopy's suggestion). You can also use the profiling tools in Chrome, as well as the AngularJS Batarang to look for slow areas in your application.
btford: You are absolutely right that this sounds like premature optimization - it sounds that way to me either :). Another reason is, that the application should work without JS in very simple way, so this basic layout (and angular does that for me for all other pages), so there will be always rendering on server.
I found a very hacky ugly solution - I bootstrap application after first click on any internal link. After clicking it, I unbind this initial callback, update URL with History.pushState and bootstrap app - it grabs the new URL and regeneration is absolutely OK. Well, I'll keep looking into not-too-distant future :).
I was able to come up with a solution for doing this. It doesn't work perfectly or for everything, but it is ok at least as far as routing and the directive I made that uses ng-repeat.
https://github.com/ithkuil/angular-on-server/wiki/Running-AngularJS-on-the-server-with-Node.js-and-jsdom
looking for some general advice and/or thoughts...
i'm creating what i think to be more of a web application then web page, because i intend it to be like a gmail app where you would leave the page open all day long while getting updates "pushed" to the page (for the interested i'm using the comet programming technique). i've never created a web page before that was so rich in ajax and javascript (i am now a huge fan of jquery). because of this, time and time again when i'm implementing a new feature that requires a dynamic change in the UI that the server needs to know about, i am faced with the same question:
1) should i do all the processing on the client in javascript and post back as little as possible via ajax
or
2) should i post a request to the server via ajax, have the server do all the processing and then send back the new html. then on the ajax response i do a simple assignment with the new HTML
i have been inclined to always follow #1. this web app i imagine may get pretty chatty with all the ajax requests. my thought is minimize as much as possible the size of the requests and responses, and rely on the continuously improving javascript engines to do as much of the processing and UI updates as possible. i've discovered with jquery i can do so much on the client side that i wouldn't have been able to do very easily before. my javascript code is actually much bigger and more complex than my serverside code. there are also simple calulcations i need to perform and i've pushed that on the client side, too.
i guess the main question i have is, should we ALWAYS strive for client side processing over server side processing whenever possible? i 've always felt the less the server has to handle the better for scalability/performance. let the power of the client's processor do all the hard work (if possible).
thoughts?
There are several considerations when deciding if new HTML fragments created by an ajax request should be constructed on the server or client side. Some things to consider:
Performance. The work your server has to do is what you should be concerned with. By doing more of the processing on the client side, you reduce the amount of work the server does, and speed things up. If the server can send a small bit of JSON instead of giant HTML fragment, for example, it'd be much more efficient to let the client do it. In situations where it's a small amount of data being sent either way, the difference is probably negligible.
Readability. The disadvantage to generating markup in your JavaScript is that it's much harder to read and maintain the code. Embedding HTML in quoted strings is nasty to look at in a text editor with syntax coloring set to JavaScript and makes for more difficult editing.
Separation of data, presentation, and behavior. Along the lines of readability, having HTML fragments in your JavaScript doesn't make much sense for code organization. HTML templates should handle the markup and JavaScript should be left alone to handle the behavior of your application. The contents of an HTML fragment being inserted into a page is not relevant to your JavaScript code, just the fact that it's being inserted, where, and when.
I tend to lean more toward returning HTML fragments from the server when dealing with ajax responses, for the readability and code organization reasons I mention above. Of course, it all depends on how your application works, how processing intensive the ajax responses are, and how much traffic the app is getting. If the server is having to do significant work in generating these responses and is causing a bottleneck, then it may be more important to push the work to the client and forego other considerations.
I'm currently working on a pretty computationally-heavy application right now and I'm rendering almost all of it on the client-side. I don't know exactly what your application is going to be doing (more details would be great), but I'd say your application could probably do the same. Just make sure all of your security- and database-related code lies on the server-side, because not doing so will open security holes in your application. Here are some general guidelines that I follow:
Don't ever rely on the user having a super-fast browser or computer. Some people are using Internet Explore 7 on old machines, and if it's too slow for them, you're going to lose a lot of potential customers. Test on as many different browsers and machines as possible.
Any time you have some code that could potentially slow down or freeze the browser momentarily, show a feedback mechanism (in most cases a simple "Loading" message will do) to tell the user that something is indeed going on, and the browser didn't just randomly freeze.
Try to load as much as you can during initialization and cache everything. In my application, I'm doing something similar to Gmail: show a loading bar, load up everything that the application will ever need, and then give the user a smooth experience from there on out. Yes, they're going to have to potentially wait a couple seconds for it to load, but after that there should be no problems.
Minimize DOM manipulation. Raw number-crunching JavaScript performance might be "fast enough", but access to the DOM is still slow. Avoid creating and destroying elements; instead simply hide them if you don't need them at the moment.
I recently ran into the same problem and decided to go with browser side processing, everything worked great in FF and IE8 and IE8 in 7 mode, but then... our client, using Internet Explorer 7 ran into problems, the application would freeze up and a script timeout box would appear, I had put too much work into the solution to throw it away so I ended up spending an hour or so optimizing the script and adding setTimeout wherever possible.
My suggestions?
If possible, keep non-critical calculations client side.
To keep data transfers low, use JSON and let the client side sort out the HTML.
Test your script using the lowest common denominator.
If needed use the profiling feature in FireBug. Corollary: use the uncompressed (development) version of jQuery.
I agree with you. Push as much as possible to users, but not too much. If your app slows or even worse crashes their browser you loose.
My advice is to actually test how you application acts when turned on for all day. Check that there are no memory leaks. Check that there isn't a ajax request created every half of second after working with application for a while (timers in JS can be a pain sometime).
Apart from that never perform user input validation with javascript. Always duplicate it on server.
Edit
Use jquery live binding. It will save you a lot of time when rebinding generated content and will make your architecture more clear. Sadly when I was developing with jQuery it wasn't available yet; we used other tools with same effect.
In past I also had a problem when one page part generation using ajax depends on other part generation. Generating first part first and second part second will make your page slower as expected. Plan this in front. Develop a pages so that they already have all content when opened.
Also (regarding simple pages too), keep number of referenced files on one server low. Join javascript and css libraries into one file on server side. Keep images on separate host, better separate hosts (creating just a third level domain will do too). Though this is worth it only on production; it will make development process more difficult.
Of course it depends on the data, but a majority of the time if you can push it client side, do. Make the client do more of the processing and use less bandwidth. (Again this depends on the data, you can get into cases that you have to send more data across to do it client side).
Some stuff like security checks should always be done on the server. If you have a computation that takes a lot of data and produces less data, also put it on the server.
Incidentally, did you know you could run Javascript on the server side, rendering templates and hitting databases? Check out the CommonJS ecosystem.
There could also be cross-browser support issues. If you're using a cross-browser, client-side library (eg JQuery) and it can handle all the processing you need then you can let the library take care of it. Generating cross-browser HTML server-side can be harder (tends to be more manual), depending on the complexity of the markup.
this is possible, but with the heavy intial page load && heavy use of caching. take gmail as an example
On initial page load, it downloads most of the js files it needed to run. And most of all cached.
dont over use of images and graphics.
Load all the data need to show in intial load and along with the subsequent predictable user data. in gmail & latest yahoo mail the inbox is not only populated with the single mail conversation body, It loads first few full email messages in advance at the time of pageload. secret of high resposiveness comes with the cost (gmail asks to load the light version if the bandwidth is low.i bet most of us have experienced ).
follow KISS principle. means keep ur desgin simple.
And never try to render the whole page using javascript in any case, you cannot predict all your endusers using the high config systems or high bandwidth systems.
Its smart to split the workload between your server and client.
If you think in the future you might want to create an API for your application (communicating with iPhone or android apps, letting other sites integrate with yours,) your would have to duplicate a bunch of code for all those devices if you go with a bare-bones server implementation of your application.
I know you can just use CSS to hide the DIV or Silverlight Plugin, but is there a way to instantiate a Silverlight Component/App using JavaScript that doesn't show any UI element at all?
There is alot of great functionality in Silverlight, like MultiThreading and compiled code, that could be utilized by traditional Ajax apps without using the XAML/UI layer of Silverlight at all.
I would like to just use the standard HTML/CSS for my UI layer only, and use some compiled .NET/Silverlight code in the background.
Yes you can, and some of the reasons you make makes perfect sense. I did a talk on the HTML bridge at CodeCampNZ some weeks back, and have a good collection of resources up on my blog.
I also recommend checking out Wilco Bauwers blog for lots of detail on the HTML bridge.
Some other scenarios for non visual Silverlight:
Writing new code in a managed language (C#, Ruby, JScript.NET, whatever) instead of native (interpreted) JavaScript.
Using OpenFileDialog to read files on the client, without round-tripping to the server.
Storing transient data securely on the client in isolated storage.
Improving responsiveness and performance by executing work in the background through a BackgroundWorker or by using ordinary threads.
Accessing cross-domain data via the networking APIs.
Retrieving real-time data from the server via sockets.
Binding data by re-using WPF's data-binding engine.
Yes. I think this is particularly intriguing when mixed with other dynamic languages -- but then, I'm probably biased. :)
Edit: But you'd need to use the managed Javascript that's part of the Silverlight Dynamic Languages SDK and not the normal Javascript that's part of the browser.
Curt, using Managed JavaScript would still require you to have some Silverlight/XAML display layer being visible on the page, correct? Is there a way to entirely get rid of any Silverlight/UI element from being displayed?