<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Phil Leggetter - Real-Time Web Software and Technology Evangelist</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.leggetter.co.uk/comments/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk</link>
	<description>Real-Time Web, Real-Time Data and Social Media Software and Technology Evangelist and Consultant</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:47:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on jQuery UK 2012 Event &#8211; don&#8217;t always use jQuery by Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2012/02/19/jquery-uk-2012-event-dont-always-use-jquery.html/comment-page-1#comment-9813</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2012 18:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?p=22726#comment-9813</guid>
		<description>Something I&#039;ve noticed is that because $(thing) looks like a language construct, developers treat it as if it is zero cost, when in fact it might well be doing a complicated loop over the entire document and be massive cost (particularly in old browsers).  I&#039;ve seen code where within two lines someone runs the exact same $(&#039;.someclass&#039;) method twice rather than storing the results of the first call.  Nobody would ever do that if the $ didn&#039;t imply low / zero cost.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something I&#8217;ve noticed is that because $(thing) looks like a language construct, developers treat it as if it is zero cost, when in fact it might well be doing a complicated loop over the entire document and be massive cost (particularly in old browsers).  I&#8217;ve seen code where within two lines someone runs the exact same $(&#8216;.someclass&#8217;) method twice rather than storing the results of the first call.  Nobody would ever do that if the $ didn&#8217;t imply low / zero cost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Real-Time Web Technologies Guide by Chimo @ Chromic &#187; TODOs</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/real-time-web-technologies-guide/comment-page-1#comment-9810</link>
		<dc:creator>Chimo @ Chromic &#187; TODOs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:26:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?page_id=20290#comment-9810</guid>
		<description>[...] Experiment with WebSockets (via php-websocket? Also, see this list) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Experiment with WebSockets (via php-websocket? Also, see this list) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Chrome/Safari (webkit) + real-time push = always loading indicator by Nikhil Patil</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2010/06/04/chromesafari-webkit-real-time-push-always-loading-indicator.html/comment-page-1#comment-9800</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikhil Patil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.kwwika.com/chromesafari-webkit-real-time-push-always-loa#comment-9800</guid>
		<description>You saved my &quot;googling&quot; time. Thanks! :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You saved my &#8220;googling&#8221; time. Thanks! <img src='http://www.leggetter.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The Zoom! book got me thinking about Kwwika by AdamD</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2011/09/21/the-zoom-book-got-me-thinking-about-kwwika.html/comment-page-1#comment-9793</link>
		<dc:creator>AdamD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?p=21797#comment-9793</guid>
		<description>Great post, Phil. I think it&#039;s good to look back at why some things didn&#039;t work. It sure helps as you look to do better next time. Thanks for sharing.

It&#039;s a shame I have to wait until February to check out the book for myself!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Phil. I think it&#8217;s good to look back at why some things didn&#8217;t work. It sure helps as you look to do better next time. Thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s a shame I have to wait until February to check out the book for myself!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Making cross domain JavaScript requests using XMLHttpRequest or XDomainRequest by Prateek89born</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2010/03/12/making-cross-domain-javascript-requests-using-xmlhttprequest-or-xdomainrequest.html/comment-page-1#comment-9792</link>
		<dc:creator>Prateek89born</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?p=741#comment-9792</guid>
		<description>broken in opera :(
wht to do nw???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>broken in opera <img src='http://www.leggetter.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sad.gif' alt=':(' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
wht to do nw???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on JavaScript namespace utility by Quagmire88</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2011/08/23/javascript-namespace-utility.html/comment-page-1#comment-9788</link>
		<dc:creator>Quagmire88</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?p=21748#comment-9788</guid>
		<description>&quot;Sometimes you don&#039;t want to include a full blown JavaScript library just for two methods.&quot;

WRONG, idiot.  Junior developers always fail to realize that simple apps quickly become sophisticated apps.  

And while it might be fun for you to be the millionth person to recreate the wheel, remember that the libraries have solved the first round of bugs/shortcomings that your implementation will inevitably have, and it&#039;s easier for the next developer at your company to pick up a library than it is to learn your stupid ass custom library (because the code will grow).

Additionally, don&#039;t hate on a library because it adds 20k to your app.  There&#039;s no perceptible difference to the user.

Finally, use Dojo.  It has all this and a bag of chips.
 </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Sometimes you don&#8217;t want to include a full blown JavaScript library just for two methods.&#8221;</p>
<p>WRONG, idiot.  Junior developers always fail to realize that simple apps quickly become sophisticated apps.  </p>
<p>And while it might be fun for you to be the millionth person to recreate the wheel, remember that the libraries have solved the first round of bugs/shortcomings that your implementation will inevitably have, and it&#8217;s easier for the next developer at your company to pick up a library than it is to learn your stupid ass custom library (because the code will grow).</p>
<p>Additionally, don&#8217;t hate on a library because it adds 20k to your app.  There&#8217;s no perceptible difference to the user.</p>
<p>Finally, use Dojo.  It has all this and a bag of chips.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cloud Hosting &#8211; Platform as a Service Vendors List by Alfredo Alvarez</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/cloud-hosting-platform-as-a-service-vendors-list/comment-page-1#comment-9787</link>
		<dc:creator>Alfredo Alvarez</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?page_id=639#comment-9787</guid>
		<description>http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/ is missing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/ is" rel="nofollow">http://appscale.cs.ucsb.edu/ is</a> missing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Q&amp;A: Are WebSockets ready for commercial use? by Richie Hindle</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2011/09/07/qa-are-websockets-ready-for-commercial-use.html/comment-page-1#comment-9786</link>
		<dc:creator>Richie Hindle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2011 07:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?p=21772#comment-9786</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the information, Phil - all very useful!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the information, Phil &#8211; all very useful!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Q&amp;A: Are WebSockets ready for commercial use? by Phil Leggetter</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2011/09/07/qa-are-websockets-ready-for-commercial-use.html/comment-page-1#comment-9785</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Leggetter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:50:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?p=21772#comment-9785</guid>
		<description>&gt; Hopefully a good fallback library will cope?

If the proxies are being a real pain and SSL isn&#039;t an option then things would probably fallback to standard HTTP Polling. If it&#039;s just an Intranet then I&#039;m guessing there won&#039;t be too many users - unless it&#039;s a global Intranet? If the user base is small then normal polling won&#039;t be too big an issue as scaling isn&#039;t such a problem. That said, your users miss out on a true realtime experience.

A wildcard SSL certificate (*.yourdomain.com) can be purchased from GoDaddy for £127.99 a year. But I understand it&#039;s still a bit of a hassle.

If rich user experiences are really required within a web app in a corporate network then it&#039;s getting to the stage that the corporation needs to start upgrading their infrastructure. Whether that&#039;s by encouraging users to install the Google Chrome frame (http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ - which doesn&#039;t require admin privileges), changing the the users default browser, upgrading their OS, allowing Flash to be installed or changing the configuration of their proxies or firewalls to be a bit more realistic.

The simple fact is that IE6, which shipped over 10 years ago, doesn&#039;t cut it any more. New technologies and JavaScript libraries aren&#039;t being developed with it in mind. How many of their servers and desktop PCs from 10 years ago are still in operation.... ok, I don&#039;t want to know ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; Hopefully a good fallback library will cope?</p>
<p>If the proxies are being a real pain and SSL isn&#8217;t an option then things would probably fallback to standard HTTP Polling. If it&#8217;s just an Intranet then I&#8217;m guessing there won&#8217;t be too many users &#8211; unless it&#8217;s a global Intranet? If the user base is small then normal polling won&#8217;t be too big an issue as scaling isn&#8217;t such a problem. That said, your users miss out on a true realtime experience.</p>
<p>A wildcard SSL certificate (*.yourdomain.com) can be purchased from GoDaddy for £127.99 a year. But I understand it&#8217;s still a bit of a hassle.</p>
<p>If rich user experiences are really required within a web app in a corporate network then it&#8217;s getting to the stage that the corporation needs to start upgrading their infrastructure. Whether that&#8217;s by encouraging users to install the Google Chrome frame (<a  href="http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/</a> &#8211; which doesn&#8217;t require admin privileges), changing the the users default browser, upgrading their OS, allowing Flash to be installed or changing the configuration of their proxies or firewalls to be a bit more realistic.</p>
<p>The simple fact is that IE6, which shipped over 10 years ago, doesn&#8217;t cut it any more. New technologies and JavaScript libraries aren&#8217;t being developed with it in mind. How many of their servers and desktop PCs from 10 years ago are still in operation&#8230;. ok, I don&#8217;t want to know <img src='http://www.leggetter.co.uk/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Q&amp;A: Are WebSockets ready for commercial use? by Richie Hindle</title>
		<link>http://www.leggetter.co.uk/2011/09/07/qa-are-websockets-ready-for-commercial-use.html/comment-page-1#comment-9784</link>
		<dc:creator>Richie Hindle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 15:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.leggetter.co.uk/?p=21772#comment-9784</guid>
		<description>Hi Phil, thanks for the detailed response!

It&#039;s bad news that proxies are likely to have a bad effect on *all* such technologies.  Hopefully a good fallback library will cope?

Re. SSL, the problem is that internal servers need certificates that are recognised by the browsers.  That means either buying certificates from commercial authorities for all your servers, or using your own root CA and installing its certificate in all your users&#039; browsers.  Either way it&#039;s a hassle, and on a trusted intranet there&#039;s no perceived need to jump through those hoops - SSL &quot;isn&#039;t needed&quot; because the whole network is secure. Remember, this isn&#039;t about internet-facing servers.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Phil, thanks for the detailed response!</p>
<p>It&#8217;s bad news that proxies are likely to have a bad effect on *all* such technologies.  Hopefully a good fallback library will cope?</p>
<p>Re. SSL, the problem is that internal servers need certificates that are recognised by the browsers.  That means either buying certificates from commercial authorities for all your servers, or using your own root CA and installing its certificate in all your users&#8217; browsers.  Either way it&#8217;s a hassle, and on a trusted intranet there&#8217;s no perceived need to jump through those hoops &#8211; SSL &#8220;isn&#8217;t needed&#8221; because the whole network is secure. Remember, this isn&#8217;t about internet-facing servers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 17/41 queries in 0.203 seconds using disk: basic

Served from: www.leggetter.co.uk @ 2012-02-22 21:43:37 -->
