|
|
Home > Blog/Essay >
develop
20060419-171431
 Enhance your AJAX application with JSON
| 
| |
JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a lightweight data-interchange format. It is easy for humans to read and write. It is easy for machines to parse and generate. It is based on a subset of the JavaScript Programming Language, Standard ECMA-262 3rd Edition - December 1999. JSON is a text format that is completely language independent but uses conventions that are familiar to programmers of the C-family of languages, including C, C++, C#, Java, JavaScript, Perl, Python, and many others. These properties make JSON an ideal data-interchange language. (read on, some nice example)
|
|
20060226-130439
Migrate apps from Internet Explorer to Mozilla
|
|
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-ie2mozgd/
--
Migrate apps from Internet Explorer to Mozilla
How to make Internet Explorer-specific Web applications work in Mozilla-based browsers
Doron Rosenberg (doronr@us.ibm.com), Staff Software Engineer, IBM, 26 Jul 2005
Ever have trouble getting your Internet Explorer-specific Web applications to work with Mozilla? This article covers common issues associated with migrating applications to the open source Mozilla-based browser. You'll first learn basic cross-browser development techniques, and then develop strategies for overcoming the differences between Mozilla and Internet Explorer.
|
|
20050709-160919
Comparison between HTMLArea 3 and FCKEditor 2, FreeTextBox 3, ACE (Advanced Content Editor 3.4)
|
| |
Comparison between HTMLArea 3 and FCKEditor 2, FreeTextBox 3, ACE (Advanced Content Editor 3.4)
|
Name |
Integration
requirement |
Load speed |
Paste image from web page |
Full Internationa-
lization (i18n) |
Table control |
|
FreeTextBox 3.0 |
ASP.NET |
slow |
Y |
Good |
Good |
|
FCKEditor 2.0 |
None |
Slow |
Y |
Good |
Good |
|
HTMLArea 3.0 |
none |
Normal |
Y |
Good |
good |
|
ACE 3.4 |
none |
Fast |
Y |
poor |
poor |
|
Name |
Development
Status |
Cost
(USD) |
Run-time
Speed |
Browser
support |
Developed language |
|
FreeTextBox 3.0 |
Active |
free |
Slow |
All |
C# |
|
FCKEditor 2.0 |
Active |
free |
Slow |
All |
JS |
|
HTMLArea 3.0 |
Normal |
free |
Slow |
All |
JS |
|
ACE 3.4 |
Slow |
50~80$ |
fast |
IE family |
JS |
|
|
20050126-041154
WebDAV --- an incomplete dream
|
|
WebDAV is aimed to provide a solution for "define the HTTP extensions necessary to enable distributed web authoring tools to be broadly interoperable, while supporting user needs".
However, the related deployment doesn't progress much in the past years. This can be attributed to some fundamental flaws that will be addressed later.
When WebDAV is proposed several years ago, it attracts much attention. Many mainstream software developers enhance their products with WebDAV capability immediately, but the applications of WebDAV don't blossom in the coming years as expected. After 2002, it seems that the industry seldom talks about WebDAV anymore.
The first problem is lacking of powerful and reliable client software, especially on Windows. Microsoft claims that IE5.0+ supports WebDAV, but the truth is that they provides a very buggy implementation in IE. The problem persists even in lastest IE 6.0 (with SP1). Users experience unpredictable disconnection when they use IE connect to a WebDAV server.
Two years ago, a commercial software provider www.southrivertech.com provides a WebDrive to hook remote WebDAV service with Windows file manager as a local disk. I believe that product is the best client-side WebDAV implementation in the world. But, to my suprise, they discountinue the WebDAV support in the later version.
The second problem is the famous content/rendering predicament. Whether a WebDAV URL should be regarded as the raw file on server or the rendered results. Take a PHP file for example, should a URL pointed to a ".php" file be treated as raw PHP program or the executed output of the PHP program?
The third problem is the URL encoding problem. Depends on different client implementation, a URL may not encoded with standard URL-encoding, but sometimes encoded by UTF-8 or depending on client local. In some case, a single URL may have different encoding in different fragments. How can a single WebDAV server correctly/precisely decode the received URL by using correct decoders for each freagment of a URL? It's a challenge to server-side application developers to face so many diverse client implementations.
WebDAV is destined to be replaced because of mentioned fundamental flaws. WebDAV --- an incomplete dream.
|
|
20050123-082308
FireFox compatible Javascript coding rule
|
| |
When reference a DOM element, you can use window.document.getElementByTag("id") to reference. The old style id.xxx or document.all['id'] doesn't work for Firefox.
|
|
20041123-024100
Some words about proftpd and vsftpd
|
|
Here are my comments about proftpd and vsftpd.
In terms of structure, proftpd has a nice apache-like module programming model which is an elegrant framework.
In terms of security, the vsftp uses a 2-process model which is really well-considered and secure.
In terms of light-weight source code hacking, vsftp is easy to tweak its source and add new features, especially for the parts of non-standard UNIX authentication / authorization mechanism.
|
|
|
Advanced Content Editor - Lite