AJAX IN NAME ONLY

Filed in archive Application Development on January 10, 2006

I have a pretty straightforward definition for what Ajax is in my head. Simply put it is the ability for a JavaScript enabled web page to exchange information with a server without having to refresh. I know this is not a computer sciency way of defining everything that is happening but it works for me. I also understand that the 'X', as in XML, in AJAX may not be used sometimes, as in sometimes people use JOSN instead. I'm fine with that and understand that we all need a name to hang our hats on order to communicate with each other.

One thing that doesn't seem right to me is the number of things that people call AJAX that I don't think are.... AJAX. Most of the stuff people are calling AJAX is really just cool new ways of using JavaScript in the browser. I mean there is absolutely nothing wrong with cool new ways of using JavaScript in the browser. I applaud the use of it in fact. However, why are we throwing the AJAX label on all this other stuff.

Examples:

• Animations


• HTML Effects


• Widgets (that aren't talking to a server)

A couple examples of this are on the DoJo site. I'm also reading the book Agile Development with Ruby on Rails (which is a really good book by the way) and inside it is entire chapter on AJAX. The majority of the chapter is centered around a couple of the items I've mentioned above. Maybe I'm getting nit picky at my old age but this bothers me. Why don't we simply call the data exchange that is happening AJAX and the JavaScript helpers that we use to display results of that exchange JavaScript? Isn't what we do confusing enough?