Develop Reference

HTML+javascript or javascript +jsp?

Hi I'm new to dynamic web dev. I've searched this site but couldn't find anything similar.
I want to implement a password checker, for robustness and length etc. Fairly conventional. The thing is, I have 2 options: 1. embed javascript inside an HTML. 2. embed javascript inside a jsp file.
With a little preliminary research it seems that most people recommend the former, that is to go with HTML. I wanna know why? I could be completely wrong, in that case I also wanna know why?
The "how" isn't all that important, but "why".
Edit: I know this question is full of flaws (for example JSP and HTML aren't mutually exclusive) but please indulge me a little bit and tell me which scheme is more appropriate, if I want to get things done front end, in a user's browser.
Edit#2 : Sorry I did not provide any bg information: I am working on a larger project and password checker is just a part of it, the project itself is a dynamic web project relies predominantly on java, serverlet.

As you state you are new to dynamic web dev. JSP is a server side programming language Just like PHP and others. If you want to confirm password, you can use ajax to check for a match from your database and if match was found create a session and redirect your user to the logged in page. If i misunderstood your question, please try to be clear enough.

Depends on your use-case. In some cases, just the front-end is enough. In many, I would say both is better.
By putting it in the front-end/client-side (the "HTML"), you create a more user-friendly approach, since you can rapidly and continuously evaluate the users' input and give them feedback.
If the application doesn't need to be particularly robust from a security perspective, this can be plenty.
The downside of HTML only validation of any user input is that it can easily be bypassed. As a programmer, I could figure out what its doing and easily bypass any and all client-side protects. Users can also wholesale just disable JavaScript, so if your site works without JavaScript in general, they won't get any validation. This is why "security" on the client side is never a thing. Never trust the client.
Implementing it only on the back-end/server-side ("JSP"), you can lock down the security since the end-user can't bypass any of your validation. It must match the rules you set forth.
The downside to server-side is that you must send the data to the server to be analyzed, then wait for a response. While this may be fast, its still much slower than client-side.
By doing it in both, you get the best of both worlds. You get the rapid feedback for the end-user without having to send any data to the server, and you get the full protections of making sure it is properly validated on the server-side.
The downside to this of course is you have to double-up on your code, so its more effort. That's why you want to weight the pros and cons in your particular case, as there isn't a single "best" answer.

If the HTML is enough for you - why should you use .jsp?
You need .jsp for creating dynamic content and it's gonna be compiled as Servlet - do you actually need Servlet in this case?

If security is not a big concern then HTML + javascript should be fine. It will be responsive amd lead to better user experience.
If this is an external facing application on the web then as mentioned in some of the other answers go with Jsp approach.

Should we use JavaScript and CGI variables to weed out bots from our visitor reports?

I am using ColdFusion 8 and jQuery 1.7.
** This is a programming question, because the solution I am questioning requires programming. It may not be the right solution to the problem, but if it is, then I need to figure out how to best program the concept. **
When a user comes to our site, we track their session by writing various CGI variables to a database using a CFC and stored procures. First we filter out non human traffic by keywords in the user agent such as "bot". Unfortunately a lot of bots and spammers mask their user agents. Later, we try to exclude from our visitor reports the bad bots and a few other known entities that are scraping pages and such. But this is a manual process.
We are considering using an additional/alternate method of tracking usage. Once the user's page loads, we will use JavaScript to send the CGI variables from the client back to our server and store them. Specifically, we'll write the server variables to JavaScript on each page and then have JavaScript send them right back to us. If a bot or user doesn't fully view the page or have JavaScript enabled, the usage won't be counted is a real user.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this is the same method that Google Analytics uses to track user behavior.
Our goal is to eliminate good and bad bots from being counted as visitors in our reports. Does using JavaScript on a page like this minimize bots being counted? Is there a gaping hole in this plan?

No I don't think that's a gaping whole. I wonder what percentage of users have JavaScript turned off though. For instance, there is an extension for Chrome that allows you to easily 'trust' a site, so most of my browsing is done with js turned off.
Actually though, it was getting to be a pain in the neck and I eventually uninstalled it. :)
One thing you could consider is the time that user is on a page. Chances are that if they're moving around faster than a human, then they're not.

Is there a problem with using all AJAX for server calls in a public site?

Understanding that if someone had JavaScript disabled the site would not work then is there any other reason not to do this?
I am in the design phase of a new site and want to make it easy to change the server code without having to change the UI - just like a form.
This is using Python server side.

One problem, arguably, is that Ajax techniques break the back button.
By making all of your calls to the server Ajax calls, the user loses their ability to 'go back' to a previous view. Facebook exemplifies this. Click the back button on Facebook, generally, does not take you to the previous view you were presented with.
In addition, it is more difficult for a user to bookmark their current view of the site. This can make it difficult for them to share what they are seeing with others and can make it difficult to debug problems that users see; rather than just sending you a URL to recreate their problem, they have to figure out the numerous steps they took before they spotted a problem.
Personally, I think the best place for Ajax is for updating small segments of a page. If you have a page that is changing more than, say, 50%, you may want to rethink the sole use of Ajax

Potentially yes, here are two items that come to mind.
Search indexing: this would have profound impact on what content on your site search engines like Google can index. Because the crawlers do not execute any AJAX script when reading your page.
Performance: Too many AJAX calls can actually hinder performance and page load response times. AJAX should generally be used to update only specific parts of a given page if at all possible. If you can emit the majority of content in the first page get request you should, period.

For a desktop-like rich web application, I would say that the all AJAX approach is acceptable.
However unobtrusive JavaScript and progressive enhancement may be a better strategy for most categories of public web-facing interfaces.

How does disqus work?

Does anyone know how disqus works?
It manages comments on a blog, but the comments are all held on third-party site. Seems like a neat use of cross-site communication.

The general pattern used is JSONP
Its actually implemented in a fairly sophisticated way (at least on the jQuery site) ... they defer the loading of the disqus.js and thread.js files until the user scrolls to the comment section.
The thread.js file contains json content for the comments, which are rendered into the page after its loaded.

You have three options when adding Disqus commenting to a site:
Use one of the many integrated solutions (WordPress, Blogger, Tumblr, etc. are supported)
Use the universal JavaScript code
Write your own code to communicate with the Disqus API
The main advantage of the integrated solutions is that they're easy to set up. In the case of WordPress, for example, it's as easy as activating a plug-in.
Having the ability to communicate with the API directly is very useful, and offers two advantages over the other options. First, it gives you as the developer complete control over the markup. Secondly, you're able to process comments server-side, which may be preferable.

Looks like that using easyXDM library, which uses the best available way for current browser to communicate with other site.

Quoting Anton Kovalyov's (former engineer at Disqus) answer to the same question on a different site that was really helpful to me:
Disqus is a third-party JavaScript application that runs in your browser and injects itself on publishers' websites. These publishers need to install a small snippet of JavaScript code that makes the first request to our servers and loads initial JavaScript loader. This loader then creates all necessary iframe elements, gets the data from our servers, renders templates and injects the result into some element on the page.
As you can probably guess there are quite a few different technologies supporting what seems like a simple operation. On the back-end you have to run and scale a gigantic web application that serves millions of requests (mostly read). We use Python, Django, PostgreSQL and Redis (for our realtime service).
On the front-end you have to minimize your payload, make sure your app is super fast and that it doesn't break in extremely hostile environments (you will be surprised how screwed up publisher websites can be). Cross-domain communication—ability to send messages from hosting website to your servers—can be tricky as well.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to explain how everything works in a comment on Quora, or even in an article. So if you're interested in the back-end side of Disqus just learn how to write, run and operate highly-scalable websites and you'll be golden. And if you're interested in the front-end side, Ben Vinegar and myself (both front-end engineers at Disqus) wrote a book on the topic called Third-party JavaScript (http://thirdpartyjs.com/).
I'm planning to read the book he mentioned, I guess it will be quite helpful.
Here's also a link to the official answer to this question on the Disqus site.

short answer? AJAX, you get your own url eg "site.com/?comments=ID" included via javascript... but with real time updates like that you would need a polling server.

I think they keep the content on their site and your site will only send & receive the data to/from disqus. Now I wonder what happens if you decide that you want to bring your commenting in house without losing all existing comments!. How easy would you get to your data I wonder? They claim that the data belongs to you, but they have the control over it, and there is not much explanation on their site about this.

I'm always leaving comment in disqus platform. Sometimes, comment seems to be removed once you refreshed it and sometimes it's not. I think the one that was removed are held for moderation without saying it.

When NOT to use AJAX in web application development? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm building a web application with the Zend Framework. I have wanted to include some AJAX type forms and modal boxes, but I also want my application to be as accessible as possible. I want my application to be enhanced by AJAX, but also fully functional without AJAX.
So as a general guideline...when should I not use AJAX? I mean, should I bother making my application usable without AJAX? Or does everyone have AJAX enabled browsers these days?

If you mean "accessible" in the ADA sense, AJAX is usually a no-no - your site should provide all its content and core functionality using only standard (X)HTML and CSS. Any javascript used should merely extend the core functionality, and your site should be coded to work elegantly in the absence of a javascript-enabled browser.
Examples: if you want a user to click on a thumbnail and get a full-size version of the image as a result, you can make the thumbnail a link. Then, the onclick event will fire a JQuery method that cancels the navigation behavior of the link and pops up a JQuery floating div to show the image on the current page. If the user's browser doesn't support JavaScript, the onclick event will never fire, and the user will be presented the image in a new page. The core functionality is the same with or without scripting.
EDIT: Skeleton example, sans JQuery-specific code.
<html>
<body>
Some URL
</body>
</html>
To cancel the navigation operation, simply make sure that the method invoked by the onclick event returns false at the end.
A neat example of the JQuery image popup I described can be found here.

Use ajax if it adds value for the user.
If the ajax version adds a lot more value than the non-ajax version then it might justify the expense to develop a solution that caters for both clients. Generally i wouldn't recommend doing the extra work (remember.. more code results in more maintenance).

I think one point is missing here: Use Ajax only for content any search engine does not need to know.

98% of users will have AJAX enabled browsers.
A significant percentage of those people won't have it turned on when they first visit your site though (or at all, ever perhaps).
I've seen websites that look like a blank page without javascript on. Don't be one of them. Javascript to fix layout issues is a horrible idea in my opinion. Make sure it loads and looks ok without Javascript. If people can atleast see what they are missing out on, they are likely to switch it on, but if your website looks like it's just broken, then...

I often have noscript block Flash and JavaScript until I make the decision that your site is worthy.
So be sure to tell me what I'm missing if I have JavaScript turned off.

It depends on the complexity of your web application.
If you can, having it functional with javascript disabled is great, because it makes your application usable not only by users on js-disabled browsers but also by robots. The day you decide to write an application to automatically fill your forms, for example, you don't have to write an API from the ground up.
In any case, do not user AJAX for EVERYTHING! I have just inherited a project that basically consists of a single page that is populated by a ton of AJAX calls and I can tell that you just thinking about it gives me physical pain. I guess the original developer didn't like the concept of using the back/forward button in the browser as a mean of navigation.

Unless you are targeting mobile devices or other non-standard web users, you can be fairly sure that the vast majority has Javascript enabled, because most major sites (including SO) rely heavily on it.

I want my application to be as accessible as possible.
You can do things like rendering your modals and forms as a page that can operate standalone.
The AJAX version pulls the template into a modal/container, the standalone version checks if it's an AJAX request and renders the page including the header/footer (this can occur from the same URL if planned well)
The AJAX version intercepts the submit and does AJAX submission then provides an inline thank you, the non-AJAX opens a thank you page. Once again you can likely use the same pages for each of these functions if thought out correctly.
Reusing templates and URL's helps avoid additional maintenance for the AJAX/non-AJAX versions.
I want my application to be enhanced by AJAX, but also fully
functional without AJAX.
Thinking through the structure of your URLs and templates can go a long way towards this, if you make most of your AJAX requests pull in completely rendered templates (as opposed to just data) then you can usually use the same URL to serve both versions. You just serve only the guts of the modal/form to the AJAX request and the entire page to a regular request.
When should I not use AJAX?
You should not use AJAX if doing so will cause a poor experience for a significant portion of your user base (there are of course techniques that can be used to mitigate this)
You should not use AJAX if the development time associated with implementing it will be too significant to justify the improvements in user experience
You should not use AJAX for content which has significant SEO value without implementing an appropriate fallback that allows it to be indexed (Crawlers are improving constantly but it's still a good idea)
I mean, should I bother making my application usable without AJAX? Or
does everyone have AJAX enabled browsers these days?
I'd say a lot of the time it's unnecessary as the vast majority of users will have AJAX enabled browsers, but there are scenarios where it's critical such as SEO optimization or when a large portion of your user base is likely to use browsers that are less likely to support Javascript as well or where they're likely to have Javascript/AJAX disabled.
A few examples of these scenarios:
A website for a company or government that uses an outdated browser as standard
A website where a large portion of the users may be disabled in a manner that may negatively impact their experience such as a website for vision or motor-skill impaired people may be negatively impacted by updating content via AJAX especially if it occurs rapidly.
A site accessed regularly via a less common device or browser that will cause a negative impact to a large portion of users
So what should I do?
Think about who is going to be using the site, how they're going to access it, and what they're going to access it with. Also try to think about not just the present but also the future.
Design the site in a manner that will cater to the majority of these users.
Think who will gain and who will loose based on my decision to use AJAX and if in doubt have a look at your analytics data to help weigh up the decision and if you lack the data it may be worth updating your tracking and obtaining a sample to aid the decision
Think does my decision to use AJAX cause any contradictions with core requirements for this project
Use AJAX to enhance content where possible as opposed to making it mandatory ie the content should work with or without JS/AJAX
Consider the additional development time involved with the use of AJAX (if any)

My experience is, we should use ajax after it works without it. For a couple of reasons.
First, if something breaks in the ajax, and you don't have it working without it, the site simply doesn't work. For example, a product list with pagination. It should work with the links alone, then use ajax when possible.
Second, for site indexing and accessibility. If it works without ajax, it's better.
And it's easier to break something (even if only for a few moments). A bad piece of code, an uncaught exception, an external library not loaded, a blocking browser extension,...
After everything works without ajax, its quite easier to add ajax. Just have the ajax catch the action, add ajax=1 and when returning the result, return only what you need if ajax=1, otherwise return everything.
In the product list example, I would only return the products and pagination html, and add to the correct div. If ajax stops working, the whole page is loaded and the customer sees the second page as it loads.
Ajax adds a lot of value to UX. If done right, the user gets a great feel when using the site, and better data usage because it doesn't load the whole page everytime.
But the question being "when not to use ajax", I would say, you should always count on it to improve UX but not rely on it for the site to work (as other users also mentioned). And nowadays we need both, great code and great user experience.

My practice is to use two main pages, let's say index.py and ajax.py. First one is responsible for generating full website, and is default target of forms. Other one generates only output specific for adequate ajax query. Logic behind both of them is the same, only the method of generating output is a bit different.
In jquery I simply change action parameter when sending a request. It works both with and without ajax, although long time have I not seen someone with disabled js and ajax.

I like the thought of coding your application without JavaScript / Ajax and then adding it in later to enhance the UI without depriving users of functionality just because they don't have JavaScript enabled. I read about this in Pro ASP.NET MVC but I think I've seen it elsewhere in reading about unobtrusive JavaScript.

You should not make your service bloated with web 2.0 effects like accordion, modal/etc forms, image zoomers etc.
Use modern tech smarter (AJAX is one of them) and your users will be happy. Do not fear AJAX -- this is very good thing to make user expirience smooth. But don't do things because you like it - do them because your user need it ;)

When you want to make a website that looks like a website, not a fugly imitation of a desktop app?

You should not use AJAX or JavaScript in cases where:
your system needs to be accessible
your system needs to be search friendly
However, by using a modern JS framework with some solid "unobtrusive" practices, you can progressively enhance pages so that they remain accessible and search-friendly while offering a slick UI to users.

This totally depends on the type of application or feature you're developing. If it is crucial that the application is accessible despite the absence of Javascript, then it would help to have fallback methods (i.e. alternative forms) to allow your user to use said functionality/feature. For that, it will require you to invest some of your time developing methods for collecting information not just using client-side scripts but also on the server-side.
For miscellaneous features that only serves to enhance user experience, it's mostly not worth it to develop fallback methods.
There's no reason to totally not use AJAX. AJAX helps minimize your traffic after all.

You can if you wish always use AJAX and update the history state using Push State or for more compatibility use the hash with none HTML5 compliant browsers.
with this you can have your server load a page then javascript read the document.hash and resume the state of the application base on the state of the hash.
for example i got to /index.html i click into something for example a client to open the view client you can change the hash to #/view/client/{client_id}/ then if a reload or go back using the browser the hash with change and you can use the onhashchanged event to capture it and match the sites state to the new hash then same if a favorite a certain state

A couple of other scenarios where one may be better off NOT using AJAX:
Letting someone to log into the web application. Use traditional form submit instead.
Searching and returning more than a few 100 rows from the database. Either break the process down or let the server side language handle it.