HMVC and Cjax

[eluser]jonez[/eluser]
[quote author="Ajaxboy" date="1402616322"]1. Cjax doesn't require CI, that is why there are 2 versions of Cjax available. It can run on any website, application, it can be used across multiple platforms, projects and frameworks. Since you rather take 30 minutes to write a lot of stuff, instead of taking 10 minutes to learn about what you are talking about, you wouldn't know that.[/quote]
I'll admit, I haven't researched your plugin thoroughly. I'll explain why;

[quote author="Ajaxboy" date="1402616322"]2. Cjax is module/plugin based, and is 100% OOP. so again.. if you only took 2 minutes to find out you wouldn't be writing smack.[/quote]
Your code is not what I'm talking about, what I meant by that is the code a developer using Cjax produces is not as re-usable as JS modules. Server side we design using MVC principals, what I'm suggesting is the client is no different and should be built the same way.

In a large scale application that is client heavy you should have an inheritance pattern for modules. You should have a base module (for say binding global items like a site search box) and each module (client portion of each controller in CI) should have it's own JS module that extends that base. It should stack exactly as CI does with MY_controller and individual controllers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't building an extendable client using that pattern be next to impossible with Cjax?

3. Actually that is what Ajax all about. It is a pretty interesting technology, you should read about it.

AJAX is only a transport mechanism. Like the hidden iframe submits we used before AJAX existed, or socket's which replace AJAX in real-time apps. Event bindings are a feature of the DOM and have nothing to do with the server or AJAX.

4. I appreciate your opinion, more like un-educated opinion... nonetheless, is respected. Thinking outside the box projects is the reason the world keeps moving forward.. a lot of technologies have grown from different smaller projects and ideas that brake the conventions of what the web used to be back when internet explore 6.0 dominated the web.

I know I'm opinionated, that doesn't make my thoughts un-educated. Here's my Github repo if you'd like to take a look at some of my code. My CI mod is out of date, if you look at the game engine blindGL you'll see a lot of the design patterns I spoke about above. It's pure JS and can be run w/o a server. The same patterns exist in the client tools of my CI mod, I don't actively maintain that repo so I can't guarantee it will work with the latest CI3 build.

You should take time to learn multiple technologies, a lot of people come from a Ajax background, Jquery, and JavaScript, and still choose to use Cjax.. because they read about it, took the time investigate and test.. and noticed it was helpful to them. While there are cons and pros for a lot of things, the ability to be able choose what technology to use and having more choices is what drives the Industry.

That's exactly my point. Tools like jQuery are destroying our development pool. The number of dev's who cannot write a lick of pure JS is disturbing. Every time I see a developer use a $.each loop I shake my head in despair. A lot of dev's have no idea what's going on under the hood (closure + bleeding memory to the garbage collector) when they don't even need one. They literally use it to replace for loops...

Just because we have tools to bridge functionality does not mean they should be relied on at all times. I don't use CSS processors, I don't use ORM's, I don't believe a developer should use a bridge when they can write the same code natively.

I don't mean any disrespect, and if you are reading this thread and thinking about using Cjax please take my posts with a grain of salt. What is good for me may not be good for you, and you may not have the time to build software as I do. All I'm asking is that you understand the conventions you are breaking and the impacts of that decision.