Nothing fancy - All Comments

re: Where is my Microsoft Ajax 3.5 library standalone download?

AGS777 — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:03:34 GMT

Terri,

Thank you very much!

re: Where is my Microsoft Ajax 3.5 library standalone download?

Terri Morton — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:54:27 GMT

Hi guys, the direct link to the Microaoft Ajax Library 3.5 can be found here: go.microsoft.com/fwlink. We are still working out this issue with the MSDN Developer Center.

re: Where is my Microsoft Ajax 3.5 library standalone download?

AGS777 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 20:07:28 GMT

Sanat,

Regarding your first comment,

No, CDN has nothing to do with download package of the library. In any case, as far as I can see, only the preview version of Microsoft Ajax library is currently hosted on the CDN.

As for integration with ASP.NET 3.5, then as I cleary wrote in my post I wanted to download STANDALONE version of Microsoft Ajax 3.5 client library. As I also mentioned in the post, the link to download standalone library is available (as it always has been) on the same download page. Please look at the second item on the page named, as I wrote, "Download the AJAX Library". It referres to msdn.microsoft.com/.../dd162267.aspx.

And no, I do not need older version.

rich,

The same as I've just answered. I wanted to download standalone version of Microsoft Ajax 3.5 library. The separate download of the client library was always available. And the question is why it is missing currently.

re: Where is my Microsoft Ajax 3.5 library standalone download?

rich — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:26:03 GMT

Isn't AJAX 3.5 now included with the 3.5 framework?

re: Where is my Microsoft Ajax 3.5 library standalone download?

Sanat Gersappa — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:17:26 GMT

The download page says - AJAX functionality is integrated in ASP.NET 3.5 SP1 and does not require any additional downloads.

Older versions are here - www.asp.net/.../archive

re: Where is my Microsoft Ajax 3.5 library standalone download?

Sanat Gersappa — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:15:10 GMT

Perhaps this had something to do with it?

http://www.asp.net/ajax/CDN/

re: Array.prototype.slice vs manual array creation

ctking — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:30:25 GMT

thank you

and thanks to the comments above

re: Array.prototype.slice vs manual array creation

Grant — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 21:02:46 GMT

If you want to implement a prematurely optimizing JavaScript code pattern, I'd suggest you iterate through your loops backwards (when possible):

<pre>

function getArray1(args) {

var result = [];

for (var ii = 0, len = args.length; ii < len; ++ii) {

result[ii] = args[ii];

}

function getArray2(args) {

var result = [];

for (var ii = args.length; ii-- > 0;) {

result[ii] = args[ii];

}

function test(fn, first, second, third) {

var start = new Date();

for (var ii = 0; ii < 100000; ++ii) {

fn(arguments);

}

document.writeln(new Date() - start);

}

test(getArray1, "first", "second", "third");

test(getArray2, "first", "second", "third");

</script>

</pre>

The results are almost always faster when decrementing through a loop compared to incrementing. I believe it has something to do with native instruction decrementing being faster than incrementing and the comparison being against 0, which takes less native clock cycles as well. Note this is on Windows on x86 architecture, OS X and x64 could be different.

I'm not suggesting you re-write all your loops to decrement, but where you need performance through a large loop, it might be worthwhile to do timing tests for both incrementing and decrementing and see if you can gain any speed this way.

Obviously for such a small loop and small gains, it may not be worth it to you to write a for() like this. But for larger loops the savings can be significant.

Regardless, I thought I'd mention it since you mentioned you were looking for ways to improve performance.

re: Firefox 3. XSLT Processing Engine bug?

AGS777 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:56:38 GMT

Thanks, Mark. Good luck with rattling the cages.

re: Firefox 3. XSLT Processing Engine bug?

Mark — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 00:16:12 GMT

Ok, fair enough about the bug comment. However, I did run your actual code and the workaround was for what I thought you were trying to do... So my misunderstanding there but that workaround could easily be changed to do x rows instead of one, right? I'm sure you saw that. But, like you say one little workaround doesn't matter if the bug issue in general is your primary concern.

And sure Microsoft has been better. No arguments there. I wonder who pays the Mozilla team, though? Maybe that's an issue. Just wondering if that's a factor. I'm on the outside also, not defending them.

Anyway, I'll check that Bugzilla post when I get a chance. Maybe I'll post a similar little workaround there, if it is appropriate. I have posted several on Bugzilla -- where it looked like no FF fix is forthcoming -- to help of course, but also to see if that rattles the cages of any of their team members. :)

So, we'll see. Good luck.