I am developing a standard rails application, and so far I haven't used any AJAX, just good ol' HTML. My plan is to iteratively add "remote" links and all that kind of stuff and support for JS responses, because I know that generating JS server side is very very evil, but I find it to be very handy as well, easy, fast and it makes the application snappy enough and i18n comes out-of-the-box.
Using a pure JSON approach would be lighter, but needs lots of client-side coding.
Now imagine that in this application users have a mailbox, and since the idea is that they will be able to do most or even all of the actions without reloading the page, the mailbox counter will never change unless they refresh the page manually.
So, here comes the question: Which is the best way to handle this?
I thought about using Ember (for data binding), and sharing views with rails, via some sort of handlebars implementation for ruby. That would be quite awesome, but not very transparent for the developer (me). Although I guess that I only need to write handlebars views that will be used by ember, the rest can still be written in their original format, no?
Another option might be to use some sort of event system (EventSource maybe?), and just go with handy the JS views approach, and listen to those events. I guess those should be JSON objects, and the client must be coded to be able to handle them. This seems a bit cumbersome, and I need a solution for heroku (faye?), which is where my app is hosted. Any hints?
I think that the ember approach is the more robust one, but seems to be quite complex as well, and I don't want to repeat myself server and client side.
EDIT:
I have seen this, which is more or less the option #2.
One of the advantages of using a JavaScript framework is that the whole application can be concatenated and compressed into one JavaScript file. Provided that modern browsers aggressively cache JavaScript, the browser would no longer need to request those assets after initial page load.
Another advantage of using a JavaScript framework is that it requires you to be a consumer of your own API. Fleshing out the application's API for your own consumption might lend to less work in the future if there is a possibility of mobile applications or 3rd parties having access to it.
If you do not need your application to respond to every request with an equivalent HTML response, I think a compelling case could be made for using a JavaScript framework.
Many of those benefits might be lost if your application needs to respond to every request with an equivalent HTML template. The Ember core has been relatively vocal and in opposition to supporting this style of progressive enhancement. Considering the tools for using a JavaScript framework in this way are relatively unstable and immature, I might be prone to using option 2 to accomplish this.
Related
According to this article from AirBnB
it says
A Hybrid Approach
At the end of the day, we really want a hybrid of the new and old
approaches: we want to serve fully-formed HTML from the server for
performance and SEO, but we want the speed and flexibility of
client-side application logic.
To this end, we’ve been experimenting at Airbnb with “Isomorphic
JavaScript” apps, which are JavaScript applications that can run both
on the client-side and the server-side.
So, I am a bit confused as to whether full-stack JavaScript frameworks render HTML files on the server or on the client. My most current educated guess is that some frameworks create HTML files exclusively on the client, some exclusively on the server and some are mixed. But which are which?
To be honest, it can get a little confusing. Especially if you just read about it and don't actually try it out.
I try to clarify it very quickly but if anything is unclear let me know :)
First thing first: What is Isomorphic JavaScript? Simplified it means that you use the very same code on front-end and back-end which is usually possible thanks Node.js (or the new fork iojs).
Now, until recently it was normal to deliver a more or less static html page to the client. Doesn't matter if the html is actually static on the server or the server creates it dynamically - the client just renders the HTML it gets.
With the new frameworks like Angular or React the approach is differently: You basically create the HTML dynamically on the client side and ask the server just for data. This means your server is in general just an (json) API!
However, some of the frameworks have an option to "pre-render" the html serverside which basically just means the initial request returns the proper html as we know it already and from there the clients takes over to manipulate the DOM again.
Usually you do that because you want a "single-page" Application that has more than one page. Single-Page just means you don't need to reload.
And the main reason you want that is because your webapp looks nicer on smartphones/tablets.
The aim is to get a "native" feeling even though it's "just" a website.
It has a few more advantages and obviously also quite a few disadvantages but if you're interested in them try to learn one of those frameworks and take it from there.
Angular.js is currently the "standard" framework that most people use - so can't really go wrong there.
I personally like React.js quite a bit but it's not as popular as Angular (yet?).
Some people even combine the two of them but you really need to know what you do to make that work in a way that makes sense so just go with one ->they both provide everything you need.
You can also have a look at Ember or Backbone but the concept is pretty similar to Angular and probably a little less complex but not as widely used.
Hope it's a little clearer now and I didn't make it even worse :)
So I'm afraid I might be missing something pretty fundamental here, but I really can't get my head around this - Why? Why would we want to use those JS MVC frameworks, instead of sticking with Rails, Django, PHP and so on?
What do these JS frameworks give us that can't be achieved by the old web frameworks? I read about SPA, and there's nothing I couldn't do there with ASP.NET MVC, right?
I'm really baffled by hearing all the people at work wanting to leave our current framework for these new ones, and it's much more than just for the sake of learning something new.
I am totally up for that, and I've always tried playing around with other frameworks to see what I'm missing, but perhaps these new technologies have something really big to offer that I simply cannot see?
Single page applications provide a better experience by having all page transitions be seamless. This means you never see the "page flash" between user actions, in addition to a few other user experience improvements.
Front-end frameworks also generally provide a common way to interface with APIs. So instead of writing an AJAX wrapper for every page in your site, you just say 'This page has this route (path), hooks data with this schema from that API endpoint and presents it with these templates and helpers.' There are many proponents of APIs, because there are many good reason to write you applications from a service standpoint. This talk sums up a lot of the points in favor of APIs. To summarize:
Orchestrating your web offerings as services makes them inherently decoupled. This means they are easily changed out. All the reasons behind strong Object Oriented design principles apply equally to the larger parts of an application. Treat each piece as an independent part, like a car, and the whole platform is more robust and healthy. That way, a defect in the headlights doesn't cause the motor to blow up.
This is very similar to how a SOAP WSDL works, except you have the auto creation tools right out of the box.
Having well defined touch points for each part of your application makes it easier for others to interface with. This may not ever factor into your specific business, but a number of very successful web companies (Google/Yahoo, Amazon AWS) have created very lucrative markets on this principle. In this way, you can have multiple products supported by the same touch points, which cuts a lot of the work out of product development.
As other point out, the front end framework is not a replacement for the backend, server technologies. How could it be? While this may seem like a hindrance ("Great, now we have two products to support!"), it is actually a great boon. Now your front and back ends can be changed and version with much less concern over inadvertently breaking one or the other. As long as you stick to the contract, things will "Just WorkTM".
To answer your additional question in the comment, that is exactly correct. You use a front end framework for handling all the customer interaction and a completely separate back-end technology stack to support it.
I'm forgetting a few good ones...
Angular, Ember, and Backbone are client-side JavaScript frameworks. They could be used interchangeably with a Rails, Django, or PHP backend. These JavaScript MVCs are only responsible for organizing JavaScript code in the browser and don't really care how their data is handled or persisted server-side.
Django/Rails etc are server-side MVC frameworks. Angular/Backbone etc are client-side Javascript MVC frameworks. Django/Rails and Angular/Backbone work together - in a single-page app, usually the server-side MVC will serve the initial HTML/JS/static assets once, and then once that is done, the client-side router will take over and handle all subsequent navigations/interactions with your app.
The difference here lies in the concept of what a "single-page application" is. Think about how a "regular" web Django/Rails website works. A user enters your app, the backend fetches data and serves a page. A user clicks on a link, which triggers the server to serve a new page, which causes the entire page to reload. These traditional types of websites are basically stateless, except for things like cookies/sessions etc.
In contrast, a single-page application is a stateful Javascript application that runs in the browser and appears to act like a traditional webapp in that you can click on things and navigate around as usual, but the page never reloads, instead, specific DOM nodes have their contents refreshed according to the logic of your application. To achieve a pure Javascript client-side experience like this in a maintainable fashion really requires that you start organizing your Javascript code for the same reasons you do on the server - you have a router which takes a URL path and interacts with a controller that often contains the logic for showing/hiding views for a particular URL, you have a model which encapsulates your data (think of a model as roughly one "row" of a database result) which your views consume. And because it's Javascript there are events going on, so you can have your view listen for changes in it's associated model and automatically re-render itself when the data is updated.
Also keep in mind that you don't just have one view on the client side, there are usually many separate views that make up a page and these views are often nested, not only for organizational purposes but because we want the ability to only refresh the parts of the UI that need to be refreshed.
The intro to Backbone is probably a good starter on the topic: http://backbonejs.org/#introduction
Check this article, there is well explained how a modern web application should looks like in the client side, server side and the communication between them.
By the way:
Client side -> Ember, Angular, Backbone, Knockout.
Server side -> Django, Node, Rails
This is something I've been thinking about a lot. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a design where the pages are un-mapped pure HTML and JavaScript and the data is all JSON pulled from the Struts 2? No action mappings means relative page references so we don't have much use for the Struts 2 URL tags or any other tags for that matter. Literally ANY information we need from the model can be retrieved through JSON or handled with a custom Interceptor. Session management for example is usually dealt with in an Interceptor anyways. I'm assuming that JavaScript can get information from the headers here which may not be correct. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Even if I am wrong, one might still use a hidden control or some other means to stash this type of information in. Regardless, I feel certain that it can be done although I am fuzzy on the specifics.
In a nutshell the end result would seem to be a pure HTML / JQuery UI which a UI-only developer, an expert on page design and usability can work with without ever needing to know Java. A person who's sole purpose is to manage the user experience from the UI side. With the use of tabs, menus pop-ups etc., pages might never need anything except JSON data which would enhance browser caching. This idea also greatly reduces the need for Web Services, since you already have a cleanly de-coupled model and view. We won't need OGNL or JSTL or have to mess with the value stack or type converters. If you are using Hibernate, I've already seen libraries out there that will convert Hibernate entities directly to JSON.
Am I completely off my rocker here? Is it possible to get what Servlets and JSP promised without all the cruft?
I'm not sure what your final sentence means at all. Not sure what you mean by "reducing the need for web services", because what you describe are web services returning JSON.
That aside; of course you can do everything client-side via JavaScript and get only JSON from S2. If your client-side framework supports it, I don't really think there are any drawbacks, as long as your app doesn't require data-specific bookmarking or you're using a JS library that supports it.
The level of caching may be slightly higher, but a well-designed, non-JSON-only app can do quite a bit of caching anyway, so I'm not sure how much of a boost you'd get from that--but certainly some.
Depending on the browser you may run into a variety of issues regarding memory usage, leaks, etc. which can be difficult (or impossible) to track down or resolve, but depending on your app's usage patterns, and your user's browser preferences, this may never become an issue.
With modern browsers, and modern client-side JS frameworks, this kind of app is completely possible, and is being done more and more--it's not a unique idea.
I am facing a decision about the web application architecture I am going to work on.
We are a small team and actually I will work on it alone (everybody work on something else).
This application will consist of front-end build on the ExtJS library
and it will use the model "load page, build GUI and never refresh".
On the web "desktop" there will be a lot of data windows, map views (using openlayers + GeoExt) and other stuff.
GUI should be flexible and allow every user to modify (and persist) the layout to fit his/her needs.
It should be possible to divide the application into modules / parts / ... and then let users in specific groups use only the specific modules. In other words, each group of users
can have different GUI available on the web "desktop".
Questions are:
First of all, is this approach good?
There will be a lot of AJAX calls from clients,
may be this could be a problem.
How to handle code complexity on client side?
So far I have decided to use dojo.require / dojo.provide feature and divide the client side code into modules
(for production they will be put together using dojo build system)
I am thinking about to use kind of IoC container on client side, but not sure which one yet.
It is very likely that I will write one for myself, it should not be difficult in dynamic language like JavaScript.
How to handle AJAX calls on server ?
Should I use WCF on server side ? Or just ordinary ashx handler ?
How to handle code complexity on server side ?
I want to use Spring.NET. May be this approach could help with modularity problem.
Data access - here I am pretty sure what to use:
For DAL classes I will use nHibernate. Then I compose them with business classes using Spring.NET.
I would really appreciate some advice about which way to go.
I know about a lot of technologies, but I have used only little part of it.
I don't have time to explore all of them and be fine with the decision.
We do this type of single page interface where I work on a pretty large scale for our clients. (Our site is not an internet site)
This seems to work pretty well for us. The more js you have the more difficult it gets to maintain, so have as many automated js tests as you can and try to break up your js logic in an mvc fashion. 4.0 is supposed to make this much easier.
Ext 4.0 has this built in if you are trying to limit the code you bring down. If you have the same users day after day, then I think it would be best to just bring all the source down (compressed and minified) and cache it.
We've found asmx to work really well. I have nothing against wcf, but last I looked it seemed like more trouble than it was worth. I know they have made many improvements recently. asmx just works though (with a few request header changes and managing the "d." on the client side).
Our Server side data access layer is pretty complex, but the interface for the ajax calls is pretty simple. You have not really given enough info to answer this part. I would start as simple as possible and refactor often.
We are also using nHibernate. Works fine for us. We have built a DDD model around it. It can take a lot of work to get that right though (not sure if we have it right after months of working at it).
If I were you I'd start with just extjs, your web service technology, and nHibernte.
I would recommend ASP.NET MVC 3 with Razor instead of a lot Javascript and calls to Service you can just do ajax calls to an Action in a Controller and that will let you have more maintainable code and use a IoC like Ninject. EF instead of NHibernate.
But it's your decision.
I would look into using a tool like Google Closure Compiler, especially if you're dealing with a very large project. I don't have too much experience with ExtJS, but large projects in JavaScript are hard and something like Closure Compiler tends to make it easier.
I'm getting to the point on an app where I need to start caching things, and it got me thinking...
In some parts of the app, I render table rows (jqGrid, slickgrid, etc.) or fancy div rows (like in the New Twitter) by grabbing pure JSON and running it through something like Mustache, jquery.tmpl, etc.
In other parts of the app, I just render the info in pure HTML (server-side HAML templates), and if there's searching/paginating, I just go to a new URL and load a new HTML page.
Now the problem is in caching and maintainability.
On one hand I'm thinking, if everything was built using Javascript HTML Templates, then my app would serve just an HTML layout/shell, and a bunch of JSON. If you look at the Facebook and Twitter HTML source, that's basically what they're doing (95% json/javascript, 5% html). This would make it so my app only needed to cache JSON (pages, actions, and/or records). Which means you'd hit the cache no matter if you were some remote api developer accessing a JSON api, or the strait web app. That is, I don't need 2 caches, one for the JSON, one for the HTML. That seems like it'd cut my cache store down in half, and streamline things a little bit.
On the other hand, I'm thinking, from what I've seen/experienced, generating static HTML server-side, and caching that, seems to be much better performance wise cross-browser; you get the graphics instantly and don't have to wait that split-second for javascript to render it. StackOverflow seems to do everything in plain HTML, so does Google, and you can tell... everything appears at once. Notice how though on twitter.com, the page is blank for .5-1 seconds, and the page chunks in: the javascript has to render the json. The downside with this is that, for anything dynamic (like endless scrolling, or grids), I'd have to create javascript templates anyway... so now I have server-side HAML templates, client-side javascript templates, and a lot more to cache.
My question is, is there any consensus on how to approach this? What are the benefits and drawbacks from your experience of mixing the two versus going 100% with one over the other?
Update:
Some reasons that factor into why I haven't yet made the decision to go with 100% javascript templating are:
Performance. Haven't formally tested, but from what I've seen, raw html renders faster and more fluidly than javascript-generated html cross-browser. Plus, I'm not sure how mobile devices handle dynamic html performance-wise.
Testing. I have a lot of integration tests that work well with static HTML, so switching to javascript-only would require 1) more focused pure-javascript testing (jasmine), and 2) integrating javascript into capybara integration tests. This is just a matter of time and work, but it's probably significant.
Maintenance. Getting rid of HAML. I love HAML, it's so easy to write, it prints pretty HTML... It makes code clean, it makes maintenance easy. Going with javascript, there's nothing as concise.
SEO. I know google handles the ajax /#!/path, but haven't grasped how this will affect other search engines and how older browsers handle it. Seems like it'd require a significant setup.
Persistant private data storage.
You need a server to store data with various levels of public/private access. You also need a server for secure closed source information. You need a server to do heavy lifting that you don't want to do on the client. Complex data querying is best left upto your database engine. Indexing and searching is not yet optimised for javascript.
Also you have the issues of older browsers being far slower. If your not running FF4/Chrome or IE9 then there is a big difference between data manipulation and page construction on the client and the server.
I myself am going to be trying to build a web application made entirely using a MVC framework and template's but still using the server to connect to secure and optimised database.
But in general the application can indeed be build entirely in javascript and using templates. The various constructs and javascript engines have advanced enough to do this. There are enough popular frameworks out there to do this. The Pure javascript web applications are no longer experiments and prototypes.
Oh, and if were recommending frameworks for this, then take a look at backbone.js.
Security
Let's not forget that we do not trust the client. We need serverside validation. JavaScript is interpreted, dynamic and can be manipulated at run time. We never trust client input.
I used to mix these two approaches but then switched to client side rendering entirely because it was really hard to handle heavy JavaScript properly the otherwise. As a complete solution can recommend the approach of the JavaScriptMVC framework.
It has a view rendering engine called EJS which can compress your views into plain JavaScript for a production build of your application. That makes it extremely fast (all your HTML gets preloaded with your single compressed JavaScript file so it is rendered as soon as you receive your models JSON data). I personally couldn't notice a performance difference between EJS rendering and transferring plain HTML.
Then for your API, following the REST principles, caching is one of the key constraints. So if your application supports HTTP caching properly for JSON data and using your compressed client side templates you might even see a performance improvement.
I could be way off here, but...
Have you ever looked at CouchDB? (I have no affiliation w/ them BTW) I could be way wrong, but your situation sounds like it may be a perfect fit for the use of the Apache CouchDB I haven't really used it yet myself but I took a good look at it a short while back and it is a very interesting database.
It is a document based database that uses a REST api for connections (very versatile and easy to use). It is also very JSON centric, very fast and a tiny footprint; they say it can reside on phones and other embedded uses too but at the same time is supposed to be extremely scalable (upwards that is). If your a big JS user (which you sound like you are) then you may be right at home with it.
I was just thinking that it may come in handy in any number of ways that have been proposed here and thought I'd chime in just to give you an idea for storage options :)