I just wondering what is the technique of creating a single page website by using javascript without using framework like ember js / angular js.
For example in php like they can get
example.com?view=homepage
Can easily get the view and load/display homepage and load homepage's content.
What if in javascript if want to load another page/content?Any technique for building it?
I just building with a simple function like
$("#otherpage").hide();
$("#homepage").show();
I don't know is it the best way to develop a javascript single website page with this way?Or any technique that you all can suggest, cause I need learn from basic, need use javascript to explore and create a single app page without php.
Thanks lot
If it was that easy, do you really think Ember, Spine and Angular would be that widely used?
Snarky comment aside, building a page that refreshes like what you've done, while simple and rather easy to modify, falls very short on quite a few things:
For sites larger than a couple of pages, your HTML markup will become MASSIVE. Not just that, but you'll have to run every single piece of code on every page...per page. Say hi to insane overhead, both on bandwidth and on server-side processing, even with caching.
If you want to dynamically update part of a page, you'll need to use AJAX anyway. Why would it suck to write stuff using an MVC approach from the get-go, rendering data as you go along with AJAX, rather than brute-feeding the entire DOM?
What is the problem with Angular, anyway? Widely used, bug-free, unit-tested, built by reliable people, and if a bug does go through, you can be sure that the community will fix it quicker than you could
If the last comment didn't dissuade you from building your own to replace an already-existing platform, I would strongly recommend you build your JS to be fed data (JSON or otherwise) from your server and to dynamically update the page. You might not want the full-blown MVC approach, but at least the MV part of it. This will also allow modularity.
Related
I am new to developing a website and because of my familiarity with Python and considering the complexity of the website, I chose Django.
I want to know the best practice for developing a template through the Django framework. My question is two-fold.
Is it best to have a bunch of for loops / if statements in the template
using template tags and other features of Django?
Or is it passing the variables from Django to Javascript through JSON and then
loading the page asynchronously?
For the first, I found the following merits: its fairly easy. I know what I want, I code the loops and I get the result that I expect. Plus giving IDs / names to HTML tags is super simple. Inline scripting also becomes simple, but I personally dont like it. But as objects start to get high in number, page load speed suffers.
For the second, and I am very new to this, the ease is gone. There is, I feel, another hoop to jump through Javascript, with JSON parsing and then the actual modeling.
If not either first or second, may be there is a balance between the two?
All help is appreciated.
If i got your question correctly then i think the answer is AJAX i.e, using the same page to load different content.You don't have to go to another page but on the same page, setting some links, you can pull newer data without loading a new page.
Hope this helped you!
I am new to React js and I have been trying to understand what real problem does js frameworks like React,Angular solve and why one need to learn them.
Of Course when i see advantages of framework everybody talk about "Shadow/Virtual DOM, Router, Reusable Components etc" , but then I stumbled upon below links which talk something different
https://medium.com/dailyjs/the-deepest-reason-why-modern-javascript-frameworks-exist-933b86ebc445
https://www.codementor.io/binarymuse/react-components-from-a-jquery-programmer-background-du107k2lz
but they were not clear to me
So i am meaning to understand how difficult it was to maintain js/jquery code before these framework came by.
Everybody is just asking to learn these frameworks because they are popular but none of them clearly explains why they are popular and what problem they solve and how they make our life easier when it comes to creating web-app from scratch.
Others have already mentioned the advantages and what these frameworks resolve.
I wanted to add what problems they can create:
I have seen many people that use a framework see it as a hammer and every website as a nail. In other words they either don't or can't figure out that in many cases a framework is not needed. I have seen web pages that are nearly 90% static data still download an entire framework just to provide drop menus or something else trivial.
Frameworks force you into a lifecycle and development style that, in some ways, make some things easier and other things much, much more complicated. AngularJS had a nasty digest cycle that often led to complications. Redux forces you to write much more code than needed just to handle state that on many pages is not needed. Vue, React, Angular all force you to either use their data creation functions, their way of rendering or their way of handling inter element communication. And none of these are faster than vanillaJS. Even virtual DOM has its issues.
The size of a framework is often much more than needed. I have several small libraries that do the majority of the work that a framework does but my code is in the sub 5K range if I load it all.
Some people that learn a framework first can not figure out how to write in raw JavaScript. They also tend to learn sloppy ways to write code. No, not everyone, but a large number people that did not start with vanilla JS write code that tends to be much larger and sloppier than needed.
It is best to avoid JavaScript except where really needed. Often I can use raw HTML and CSS to do everything I need to do. I find that it is rare that I need to use much JavaScript even in projects that exceed several thousand files. It is faster to allow the browser to process HTML and CSS, which all processes at compiled speeds and only use JavaScript for things you can not do in HTML and CSS.
You don't "need" to learn them, but many people and companies use them. The main advantage is being able to have your entire site on a single webpage, where you just modify the data and it handles changing the elements on the page for you. For instance, you can just think about "put the user's name here, and when they click the button, add another list field there", but you no longer have to think about "get this DOM element, set its innerHTML to the user's name, and when they click the button, create a new DOM element for input, another one for the label, get the container element, append the new children". It also allows you to more easily bind data to DOM elements, so you can just say "this field is for the variable 'numberOfItems'" instead of worrying about grabbing the DOM element and its value and storing it into numberOfItems when you need it; with React/Angular/etc. that variable will always be up to date with the user's input without you needing to update it.
TL;DR: The frameworks are not necessary, but they help automatically handle a lot of common, tedious DOM manipulation for you in a way more optimized than you'd likely end up implementing yourself, with less code for you, and all on a single page instead of having to reload the page every time you want to display new data or a new layout.
What is React JS?
ReactJS is an open-source JavaScript library that is used for building user interfaces specifically for single-page applications. It’s used for handling the view layer for web and mobile apps. React also allows us to create reusable UI components.
React allows developers to create large web applications that can change data, without reloading the page. The main purpose of React is to be fast, scalable, and simple. It works only on user interfaces in the application. This corresponds to view in the MVC template. It can be used with a combination of other JavaScript libraries or frameworks, such as Angular JS in MVC.
https://www.c-sharpcorner.com/article/what-and-why-reactjs/
This is a wide discussion about frameworks in general. Is easy to say React, Angular and so on makes easier to manipulate DOM elements and reuse components, but to apply frameworks usually are about if solve your problem.
in javascript we have load the webpage by using location.href but by using angular/react we the page updates automatically.
I've been working with ASP.NET MVC for about a year now. I enjoy the ability to create SPA's especially by using the following tools:
Partial views(via html.action() and renderPartial())
Ajax helpers (Ajax.Actionlink() and Ajax.beginform())
My question is, Is it safe to just continue without a JavaScript frameworks or am i seriously missing out on something by not utilising a Javascript framework like Angular JS.
This depends a lot of the type of application you are building, but in general you don't necessarily have to choose between ASP.NET MVC and Angular, you can use both in a project.
For example, if you have a page with a grid where the user will add rows and you have to calculate sums etc you could use angular on that page (and it will speed up the development process).
But if you have pages with static content you can just serve an html file there using ASP.NET MVC.
And you can even use both of them. For something like a blog post, you can use a static html file for the post content and then implement the comments are with angular.
Since ASP.NET is a server side framework, it can only go that far as AJAX insertions. Angular JS is a client side Framework, designed for SPA in mind. If you are going for a light SPA, ASP.NET will do nicely, but I think you should use the right tools for the right job. Don't hesitate to mix them in order to find the right place between server side rendering and client side dynamism.
You are definitely missing some things.
The purpose of frameworks such as angular is not just to handle your bootstrap tab switches or whatever to display just parts of the UI rather than everything. Sure, you can create small and simple SPAs by utilizing such logic but once you come to create real-world apps that approach will become unusable. The reasons to this are:
Your site will be highly unmaintainable
Frameworks like angular provide much more than just templating (more on that in a moment) but features such as routing, which allows on-demand content loading. That is, instead of sending the whole page to the client, much of which (s)he maybe will not even take a look at, you can load fragments of HTML on-demand, which reduces network usage. Imagine you had to download everything (posts, images, videos, chat messages etc) on Facebook and hide them until you actually want to see them.
Back to templating, this is a very powerful feature. Again, in the case of simple apps you can use custom JS code - that is, concatenate strings to create fragments of HTML and then insert them into the DOM. But even with simple apps this is a smelly thing to do. Imagine you had to write custom JS to concatenate your chat messages in an app like Facebook then insert them into the DOM. With angular2, for example, you can do something like this:
<ul>
<li *ngFor="let msg of messages">{{msg.Sender}} said: {{msg.Content}}</li>
</ul>
This way, Angular2 will do all the parsing and DOM handling for you. That is, you write declarative markup rather than imperative logic for what you want to display.
All in all, they help you to decouple the logic from the UI so you should definitely dig into any of the popular frameworks and get a taste of their capabilities if you want to create rich apps. You will not regret it.
I'm working on a new project based entirely on Java EE 6 technologies, including JSF/EJB/JPA. In previous projects I widely used json/ajax before. But this time I'm reconsidering if I really need json/ajax any more. JSF has supplied me with a great way to build web UI. It seems the only benefit left on the json/ajax side is data-refreshing without reloading the page, at the cost of complex data processing in javascript. If I cut off json/ajax, I'm both cutting off the benefit & the javascript work, which doesn't really appear to hurt much to me.
I especially do not like jquery. I think JQuery is like a fabulous promise, which always starts in an attractive way, but as the project grows more and more complex, as more jquery elements added weired javascript errors emerge here and there. Even if I use json/ajax, I will not use jQuery anyway.
What do you think about it? Will you continue to work on json/ajax when using JSF?
More of a general question here.
At the moment a lot of the projects I work on utilize server-side views to render the user interface, and spruce it up with some JavaScript here and there. That is all fine and dandy for smaller projects, but lately it seems like the .js files are growing rather large in size, and the stacks upon stacks .live and .bind jQuery calls just don't seem to cut it anymore.
What are good ways to blend JavaScript into the view and, perhaps, the controller of a web application? For the Java-driven websites I found DWR to be quite useful, but a lot of times user initiated events require controller logic, which is starting to become overwhelming and confusing when it's part of the many lone functions included on the pages.
I considered a completely AJAX-driven template engine but that seems to be a bit extreme and will likely be a pain in the butt for anyone to use. Cloning the functionality of the existing backend classes, on the other hand, seems redundant.
What is a good "middle ground" approach used by web apps out there, those that aren't entirely AJAX free nor completely JavaScript driven?
EDIT:
Perhaps I'll provide an everyday example of a problem. Say I'd like to provide the user with a modal dialogue confirming or denying something:
"Your picture is uploaded but looks terrible. You need a new 'do." (OK | What?)
Now, in one scenario, that dialogue could pop up as a result of uploading an image with a page refresh, in which case the server-side view will render it. In another scenario, it might appear after uploading the image via AJAX, in which case it'll probably be triggered by JavaScript on the page. In both cases we need to access the dialogue creation code, and I can't so far think up a way to have, say, a Dialog class which would work the same in both cases.
I'm certainly not an expert in this realm, but in the past have worked with projects utilizing RESTful services which seemed to fit the 'AJAXY' world of web site development nicely. I can't say it'd be ideal for web apps, but worked great for content-rich presentational sites. It seems like it'd fit your need for multi-presentational formats nicely via custom templates. So, the service could call the pictureUpload service using a HTML page template, or it could call the service and request the AJAX component template.
I've been working recently with JavascriptMVC (2.0) for an internal company app. It has its warts, but the overall architecture is good and allows you to create "controller" JS classes. Each controller "owns" a subset of the DOM tree (or if you prefer, a visual part of the page) and responds to events within that zone and uses EJS templates (the "view" part) to alter areas under it. It nicely abstracts what would otherwise be a lot of $(...).bind() and $(...).live() calls into an OOP model.
In my case, our interface is almost 100% JS-driven due to the constraints around the project, but there's no reason you can't mix-n-match.
Now, in one scenario, that dialogue could pop up as a result of uploading an image with a page refresh, in which case the server-side view will render it. In another scenario, it might appear after uploading the image via AJAX, in which case it'll probably be triggered by JavaScript on the page
Here's how I'd do it in a way that works even with Javascript disabled:
Server-side outputs an HTML upload form. The plain-HTML form will submit to another PHP page.
A snippet of Javascript runs when the page finishes loading, looking for that form.
The javascript creates a HairdoUploadController instance, passing in the <form>...</form> to the constructor.
The controller "takes over" the form, using JQuery selectors to alter the styling and to trap the form submitting events.
The controller adds a new div and associates it with a (initially hidden) Jquery-UI Dialog.
When the form is submitted, the controller instead makes an AJAX call, to a slightly different URL than the plain form.
The results of the AJAX call are pushed into the Dialog's div, and the dialog is displayed.
You can throw all logic at the server, and assume a dumb client that displays whatever the server sends.
There are two scenarios:
Non-Ajax Request
Ajax Request
The only difference between them is that, in the first one you're rendering more content than just the modal dialog. There's no reason why you can't have a Dialog class on the server which spits out the HTML representation of the dialog, and is used for both types of request. Then in the AJAX call, you would simply add the server's response into the DOM.
Like you said, it can be problematic sharing UI creation logic on both client and server side, so it's better to choose one and stick with it. In the above case, all logic is pushed to the server. Read up more about AHAH.
It sounds like Google Web Toolkit might be what you're looking for.
It allows you to write client-side
applications in Java and deploy them
as JavaScript.
Presumably then you could write the code once in Java and use it in both places, although I've never used GWT myself.
In my own framework that I'm developing, I'm basically forcing developers to write the code twice. Once in the native language, and once in JavaScript. I make them fill in a function which returns the JS, and then it can be called automatically where it's needed. But all the code is contained within one class so at least you don't have the logic spread all over the place, and you can quickly compare if they are functionally equivalent. For things like regular expressions, it can normally be written just once and then passed to JS (I use it to validate once on the client-side, and then again on the server-side).
I have found myself recently using my server side code (ASP.Net MVC in my case) as a means to provide re-use of my layout components (master files), and small encapsulated bits of UI (partial views), and doing a fair amount of work in javascript. In this particular case I'm still pretty early in my UI work, but with jQuery and jQuery UI I've got a lot of functionality in a very small footprint.
I think one of the challenges to having a mixed solution is figuring out where to put the various bits of logic. After that the rest of it probably goes to figuring out how to re-use as much of your javascript and css code as possible. I still haven't figured out how to manage the various javascript artifacts I end up with (though the Google CDN relieves a lot of that by providing jQuery, jQuery UI, ans the jQuery UI CSS resources).