Login
Sign Up For Free
English
中文 (繁體)
中文 (香港)
中文 (简体)
日本語
Filipino
Bahasa Indonesia
Bahasa Melayu
Pусский
Português (Brasil)
Magyar
Français
Español
Deutsch
Čeština
العربية
Català
Dansk
Ελληνικά
فارسی
Suomi
Gaeilge
Hindi
עברית
Hrvatski
Italiano
Norsk bokmål
Nederlands
한국어
Polski
Română
Slovenský
Svenska
Türkçe
українська
беларуская
ไทย
Standard view
cheeaun
thinks
16 years ago
that plurk should use jquery/mootools/any more compact framework.
latest #18
ryanlim
says
16 years ago
i'm pretty sure it is already pretty compact
cheeaun
says
16 years ago
a lot of http requests...
ryanlim
16 years ago
says thats what you get for being plurk - constant refreshes and updates to your page.
立即下載
cheeaun
says
16 years ago
i mean one of those yahoo advices on speeding up web apps?
cheeaun
says
16 years ago
and uh comet?
ryanlim
says
16 years ago
the http requests made to plurk are pretty light weight. if you inspect what gets sent and received, they are only what is necessary.
ryanlim
says
16 years ago
the js code is then used to parse the response and put it on the timeline
cheeaun
says
16 years ago
ic...
alvin
16 years ago
ryan, i think he's talking about the JS script link, instead of the ajax polling.
ryanlim
says
16 years ago
yep. i've "analyzed" it already hahaha
ryanlim
says
16 years ago
ohhh ok
alvin
16 years ago
anyway, we've looked at those JS libs out there before we started coding. for the combination of various reasons,
alvin
16 years ago
we choose to use our own libs.
alvin
16 years ago
footprint is one thing. mootools and jquery started off with 20kb before you even start coding.
cheeaun
says
16 years ago
but it's great for web app with mutliple features.
alvin
16 years ago
i'm sure. but it really depends on what you mean by feature.
alvin
16 years ago
it all comes down to using the best tool for the project.
cheeaun
says
16 years ago
i see...
back to top
delete
reply
edit
cancel
cancel