Web design architecture (reliance on JavaScript)

Discussion in 'ASP General' started by Abdullah Kauchali, May 28, 2004.

  1. Hi folks,

    (Need comments if you have done something like this before. Any response
    would be greatly appreciated.)

    We've recently been prototyping the idea of completely avoiding the server
    building the eventual/final HTML for the browsers. So far we've got this:

    1. Create separate ASP pages that talk to the COM business components (say:
    businessproc.asp);
    2. These ASP pages do a predefined number of non-visual business "actions"
    (e.g your CRUDs);
    3. The businessproc.asp page is embedded (?) into a user-interface HTML
    page (ui.htm) as an hidden iframe;
    4. The business actions of the hidden iframe'd businessproc.asp are
    triggered via JavaScript (there is a "runner" javascript function on the
    businessproc.asp page that acts as a receiving point which also does a form
    post triggering the correct "action");
    5. The results of the businessproc.asp are then PUSHED into the parent
    UI.HTM page once the business action is complete (once businessproc.asp
    returns);
    6. The receiving functions of this post-back on the UI.HTM page then
    "paint" the appropriate controls. (Cycle complete)

    Has anyone done this before? (Any links etc) What are the general caveats
    of this approach?

    Many thanks in advance,

    Regards

    Abdullah
    Abdullah Kauchali, May 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Abdullah Kauchali wrote:
    > Hi folks,
    > (Need comments if you have done something like this before. Any response
    > would be greatly appreciated.)
    > We've recently been prototyping the idea of completely avoiding the server
    > building the eventual/final HTML for the browsers. So far we've got this:
    > 1. Create separate ASP pages that talk to the COM business components (say:
    > businessproc.asp);
    > 2. These ASP pages do a predefined number of non-visual business "actions"
    > (e.g your CRUDs);
    > 3. The businessproc.asp page is embedded (?) into a user-interface HTML
    > page (ui.htm) as an hidden iframe;
    > 4. The business actions of the hidden iframe'd businessproc.asp are
    > triggered via JavaScript (there is a "runner" javascript function on the
    > businessproc.asp page that acts as a receiving point which also does a form
    > post triggering the correct "action");
    > 5. The results of the businessproc.asp are then PUSHED into the parent
    > UI.HTM page once the business action is complete (once businessproc.asp
    > returns);
    > 6. The receiving functions of this post-back on the UI.HTM page then
    > "paint" the appropriate controls. (Cycle complete)
    > Has anyone done this before? (Any links etc) What are the general caveats
    > of this approach?
    > Many thanks in advance,
    > Regards
    > Abdullah

    It is well studied and widely used; see some links at
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...r&q=communicate with hidden frame&btnG=Search
    and
    http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&...r&as_drrb=q&q="hidden frame" push&btnG=Search

    A discussion & experience:
    http://builder.com.com/5100-6371-1044774.html

    There are entire frameworks based on such an architecture: e.g., the
    mapping company ESRI ( http://www.esri.com/ )uses such an approach for
    their WWW map display software.

    Downsides:
    - startup can be abysmal: see esp. the above builder.com.com URL,
    - you can't bookmark in frames, etc., see
    http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Problems_with_using_frames for a list of
    complaints specific to frames,
    - IIRC IFRAME _was_ proprietary to Microsoft but was incorporated into
    HTML 4, so you might also want to check browser compatibility.

    On a completely different note: if your ASP pages do little more than
    call COM components, you might be better off accessing the database
    directly from the ASP pages. Reason is the cost of component creation
    and data marshalling between ASP page and COM component is high.
    Microsoft's Nile benchmarks showed pure ASP pages outperforming ASP
    +COM+ under heavy load.

    Good Luck,
    Michael D. Kersey
    Michael D. Kersey, May 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Muhammad Khan
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,210
    Mike Treseler
    Jul 10, 2003
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    502
    Malcolm
    Sep 29, 2005
  3. rashmi
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    446
    Grumble
    Jul 5, 2005
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    414
    Malcolm
    Sep 29, 2005
  5. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    651
    Malcolm
    Sep 29, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page