Aptana ActiveJS

Been a while between posts because I've been quite sick. Here in Ouray, we've all been sharing the same damn flu/virus over the past couple weeks. Sucks!

Anyway, I'm a bit late tagging this but, Aptana released a beta of their forthcoming JavaScript framework, ActiveJS. The first part to come out was ActiveRecord.js, which is set to work with Google Gears, Aptana Jaxer, Adobe AIR, and the iPhone. It's looking pretty sweet and, as a result, of Aptana's plans to add more to the ActiveJS framework (patterns for handling views, etc.), I will begin utilizing this framework with Bloxer, while bagging my own framework at this time to help support and promote ActiveJS (plus, I'm pretty sure their team's work will blow anything I do out of the water).

That said, I highly recommend that developers take some time to try and create a framework in your language of choice. I've always been pretty solid with JavaScript, having started learning and using it in 2000, but trying to build an MVC framework taught me so much more about the language. Even the little work I did was incredibly enlightening. Definitely worthwhile, I think.

Okay, I hope to get back on track with Bloxer and ActiveJS this week . Heading to the doctor's tomorrow to get (another) check up. Thankfully, I feel markedly better today...and am hoping for no more slippage back into sickness (happened twice already with this damned cold).

Comments

Jaxer. Customize the Jaxer Server

I mentioned in an earlier post on Jaxer that I wasn't going to go over the setup because Jaxer is included in Aptana Studio. That was a bit short-sighted of me. Unsurprisingly (to myself), I decided I wanted to be able to play with Jaxer in a way that wouldn't work with the built-in Studio version.

Jaxer Server Setup and Basic Configuration:

Setting up Jaxer server on your local machine is pretty easy. To start, download your desired flavor of the Apache + Jaxer server from Aptana (Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux installations available).

On a Mac, the install couldn't have been easier: double-click the DMG file that you downloaded from the site above and drag the Aptana_Jaxer folder to your Applications folder.

For Windows, it's equally easy. You start by expanding the downloaded zip file from the link above. Then, just move it where you want on your system (or, unzip it directly to the desired location). Linux has some more detailed instructions, which can be found in the Setup section in the online guide (link below).

Launch Jaxer

Once you've downloaded the Apache/Jaxer server, you need to launch it. On a Mac or Windows PC, open the Jaxer installation folder for your platform (i.e., /Applications/Aptana_Jaxer). On a Mac, double-click the application file for Jaxer Launcher. On Windows, double-click the StartServers.bat file.

By default, the Apache + Jaxer server listens on port 8081. So, head to http://localhost:8081/aptana/ to ensure that your server is installed and running.

One nice thing for those of us already running an instance (or more) of Apache. You can safely run Apache + Jaxer alongside other Apache instances (assuming no others are listening on 8081).

It's Okay but Not Quite:

I tend to err on the side of over-organization. I try to keep all my websites in central locations on my computer. I keep all my web applications (including RIAs) in a single root folder (/Users/myusername/Sites) and, by default, the Apache + Jaxer places your web root folder within the install folder (Mac = /Applications/Aptana_Jaxer/public/).

With some minor edits to the Apache configuration files, you can relocate this home directory anywhere you want on your computer. I decided to create a Jaxer web root as a sibling to my standard web root (/Users/myusername/JaxerSites).

Configuration File Edits:

To switch the web root directory, open the following files in your text editor of choice (save yourself a world of headaches and use an application that can/will edit plain text files):

JAXER_INSTALL_DIR/Apache22/conf/httpd.conf

JAXER_INSTALL_DIR/Apache22/conf/extras/httpd-vhosts.conf

JAXER_INSTALL_DIR/jaxer/confs/jaxer-mac-httpd.conf (same file exists for win and linux...with those characters in place of the mac in my file)

In httpd.conf, find the following line of text:

DocumentRoot "/Applications/Aptana_Jaxer/public"

Change the text inside the quotes to the full file path to the desired web root

Also in httpd.conf, find the following line of text:

</div>

As with the note above, change the text inside the quotes to the full file path of the desired web root. Be aware that some servers ('nix ones to be sure) are case-sensitive. Be consistent with your typing and naming!

In jaxer-mac-httd.conf, find the following line of text (there are two spots where this one needs to be changed!):

</div>

Change it to match the new web root directory.

Finally, locate this line of text in the jaxer-mac-httpd.conf file:

Alias /aptana /Applications/Aptana_Jaxer/jaxer/aptana

Change it to read /aptana /PATH TO YOUR NEW SITE ROOT

One more task, copy or move the "aptana" folder (in JAXER_INSTALL_DIR/public/apatana) to the new web root. This way, you can use the Aptana sample applications and server diagnostics without issue.

That's it for switching your web root (changing five lines in two files ain't too bad!). Restart your Apache + Jaxer server and you're ready to server files from the new location.

Online Docs:

Jaxer Docs

</div>

Comments

Flex Framework Overkill?

I've been working on an interesting Adobe Flex project since last month, which I received because the original developer was too busy with other projects for the same client. The application itself relies on .NET web services for it's back end (must contain hatred for .NET web services while typing...trying...so hard...) and employs PureMVC (AS3 Standard) for the application's framework.

In most of my previous Flex projects, I tended to shy away from using a framework but, in the interest of exploration and learning, I built a friend's website in Flex and PureMVC (bridgerconstructionservices.com). Recently, I've started to use Mate (pronounced mah-tay, it is named after the delicious Argentine drink), which I like a great deal because it's a Flex, tag-based framework that, in my opinion, is easier and more efficient for developers to utilize. However, this post isn't about Mate or selecting one framework over another.

Back to my current Flex project: it took me about a week to get back into the swing of using PureMVC. The process of relearning PureMVC got me thinking about Flex and frameworks in general, which brings me to the point of this post:

Is the use of a framework in Flex overkill?

The reason for the question is because Flex itself is merely a framework for the Flash/ActionScript platform. In essence, using a framework in a Flex project amounts to little more than adding a framework (PureMVC, for example) on top of an already used framework (Flex).

When using PureMVC or Cairngorm, a developer must create multiple files to accomplish a single task. For example, in my current PureMVC project I have 5 files to deal with in order to do the following tasks: call a web service and display the returned results. The 5 necessary files are: a command class; a proxy class; a value object; a mediator class; and a view.

This seems like a good bit of overhead for what is essentially a simple and commonly used task. In Cairngorm, a similar task supposedly requires more files than PureMVC. However, I'm not familiar with Cairngorm outside of some general reading, so please let me know if this is incorrect.

If I were to avoid a framework altogether I could accomplish this task (call web service, show results) in a single file; one that would not contain much code.

I don't know about Cairngorm but I can absolutely see where PureMVC excels for Flash-based projects. In fact, PureMVC is, in actuality, an ActionScript 3 framework (they have tons of ports and the AS3 Standard port is just one of them). It is not actually a Flex framework. The goal of PureMVC is to be a agnostic as possible, hence why it's an ActionScript port. If it were just for Flex, there would, most likely, be a need to make one for Flash and since Flash and Flex are both based on ActionScript, this seems like a logical approach to me.

In general, however, using PureMVC for Flex has not gelled for me. I don't yet see where it's supposed to make my life easier as a developer. I feel like it does the opposite; it encumbers me and makes it harder to accomplish required tasks in the application. I imagine this is because I am still a newbie as regards PureMVC!

During my recent explorations with Mate, I have found its approach intuitive and powerful. I think this is because it doesn't really feel like a framework. Mate (and this may be off-base) basically comes down to an EventMap component that you add to your project (along with the Mate SWC) that captures standard Flash Events and acts accordingly on them (ala a Controller); calling services, managing returned data, injecting views with data, etc. It seems to fit into the flow of a Flex project far more naturally than other frameworks. Basically, I've felt like PureMVC gets in my way when I am coding, while Mate doesn't.

Please note that this post is not intended as a dig at PureMVC or Cairngorm or an endorsement of Mate. I genuinely am trying to see the benefits of frameworks such as PureMVC and Cairngorm, which I lump together only in that they are more involved in their usage than a framework like Mate.

Any thoughts or comments? If a PureMVC or Cairngorm developer stumbles upon this post, I am very interested to hear what it is you like about your framework of choice and how you feel it benefits project development, maintenance, etc.

Comments

Craig Kaminsky

@Elliot: Mate is a really nice framework and the fact that it's MXML only is both a pro and a con. On the pro side, it fits into the Flex framework quite well...seamlessly, really. On the con side, it means it's only usable in a Flex project (no Flash/AS ports available or planned, so far as I understand).

If you can stay within the Flex framework, I highly recommend Mate. If not, I prefer PureMVC over Cairngorm. The PureMVC learning curve is steep (I'm still climbing!) but as you get into the mindset, it makes increasing sense. That said, it still drives me nuts sometimes :)!

Elliot

There is a lot of talk at my work... Resource Interactive, of using frameworks. In fact the developers have been using variations of them for quite awhile. While I am not a developer, I am an interaction designer with programmer tendencies! :) At first glance, I look at the implementations of Cairngorm and PureMVC the developers use... and I ask myself why? It seems like a bit of torture and/or codeturbation... (especially for a guy who came into the programming world through timeline based Actionscript!) But I do realize it's nice to have structure around projects, especially when hordes of developers are working on it. So I want to find something easy to use, and loose. Mate sounds really interesting. Is there any port to a pure Actionscript version?

I think a combination of Mate and custom components sounds like a good fit for me. Since most of the designers I work with know little or no code... I can't expect them to share my workload. So components can expose variables to a designer in a visual, non-technical way, and help offset the workload. That way you can continue creating cool work!

Comments

Disclaimer

Author

Craig Kaminsky

Aptana ActiveJS

Comments

Disclaimer

Older · View Archive (109)

Jaxer. Customize the Jaxer Server

Comments

Newer

Flex Framework Overkill?

Comments

Author

Craig Kaminsky