Web or Potatoes ?

Yesterday TV (TG1) said that a job called "Potatoes Watcher" is paid 8,00 euro each hour.
In Italy a web/desktop developer with 10 years experience and more than one official certification is paid about 4 or 5 euro each hour.

Potatoes Watcher look for bad potatoes 40 hours each week.

An expert web/desktop developer study every day new languages, new technologies and creates program quite more complex than a potato ... about 60 hours each week (but paid for 40 hours).

I'm really thinking to change my job, sending curriculum vitae to italian potatoes factory.

I'll probably have more chance to grow up my own salary and why not, my potatoes skill too, even having less work to do.

This is Information Technology in Italy and that's why We are on Top Ten of Europe UnTechnology.

Regards (and please, eat potatoes!)

[IT] Italia - Finalmente i conti tornano

Premessa
I riferimenti a persone o a cose di questa mia riflessione pubblica non sono puramente casuali ma sono solo parte, come appena detto, di una mia personale riflessione del tutto opinabile.

La realtà italiana del settore IT
Sono diverse settimane che seguo gli interessanti interventi di Punto Informatico che riguardano il settore IT.

Addetti ai lavori di ogni tipo con esperienza da 0 a 100 e per ogni età lamentano problematiche analoghe, quali:

• retribuzione non adeguata rispetto le competenze richieste


• ricerca di professionisti senior di ogni tipo per offerte spesso sotto le 1.000 euro mensili


• mancata consapevolezza sulle reali necessità aziendali, annunci improbabili per ricoprire ruoli che non hanno nulla a che fare col curriculum ideale


• sfruttamento d'orario, contratti raramente a tempo indeterminato


• carriere "ghiacciate" dalle dubbie prospettive future


• mancata disponibilità di fondi, mancata voglia di investire


• esubero di "gonfia curriliculum" e professionisti qualificati e veramente capaci messi spesso sullo stesso livello dei primi

Unanime l'idea che in Italia il progresso in ambito IT sia tra i più discutibili d'Europa mentre alcuni giurerebbero tra i più arretrati a livelo mondiale.

La news che ha creato un frastuono imbarazzante in questi ultimi giorni è che finalmente abbiamo le prove inconfutabili che in italia non si ha nemmeno vagamente la concezione di cosa sia un sito Web, cosa sia la sicurezza, come si inseriscano semplici contenuti ne di come un servizio possa realmente essere di pubblica utilità.

Il caso in esame è il tanto atteso portale del turismo italiano, una macchina divora soldi accesa da 3 anni capace di trangugiare "solo" 45 milioni di euro contro i potenziali 90 previsti inizialmente per offrire ai cittadini italiani una inconfutabile prova che:

• in Italia non abbiamo le competenze per valutare i costi effettivi di un qualunque progetto, inutile quindi proporre finanziarie su finanziarie quando la capacità di sperperare in ogni dove è intrinseca


• in Italia nessuno da il buon esempio, inutile presentare per primi una legge ben fatta quando in 3 anni di tempo non si ha avuto il buon senso di rispettarla


• in Italia alcune persone che ci rappresentano non hanno i requisiti tecnici per valutare obbiettivamente i risultati ottenuti, tantomeno darci delle corrette informazioni


• in Italia mancano percorsi di formazione pubblici e dedicati, non a caso da alcuni mesi un gruppo di professionisti sta lavorando per definire ruoli e competenze utili per lo sviluppo Web, non ci sono quindi competenze tecniche ufficiali per garantire la buona riuscita di un qualunque progetto Web

Da un punto di vista puramente tecnico è come se un supermercato affidasse al proprio macellaio lo sviluppo e la realizzazione di un'automobile Gran Turismo.
L'esempio non regge comunque il confronto, dato che la cultura automobilistica italiana è un vanto documentato dal successo dei più noti produttori di auto.

In questo settore abbiamo ingegneri meccanici, ingegneri informatici, ingegneri edili ed ingegneri aereonautici, che cosa abbiamo invece per il Web? Nulla!

Nulla che prepari tecnicamente un professionista di settore, nulla che sia una effettiva specializzazione o come dicono nella pagina accessibilità del portale in esame, nulla che garantisca una competenza DE FACTO.

Il messaggio per tutti gli italiani è quindi il seguente:

• se non avete adeguate competenze per svolgere il vostro lavoro, nonostante un budget praticamente illimitato affidato solo a voi, scrivete che il risultato ottenuto è un risultato de facto, il che implica la totale mancanza di responsabilità da parte vostra sulla corretta riuscita del progetto


• se superate i limiti di velocità scrivete nel verbale la seguente giustificazione: de facto ero convinto di rispettare i limiti


• se siete evasori fiscali dichiarate che de facto avete avuto spese di altro tipo paragonabili a delle tasse


• se vi danno una scadenza e voi non la rispettate, non preoccupatevi, de facto potreste dire di averla rispettata proponendo un risultato estremamente parziale del progetto


• se pagate le tasse regolarmente, se siete brave persone, se a stento arrivate a fine mese o a stento siete disposti a pagare milioni di tasse grazie al vostro invidiabile reddito, de facto state buttando via i vostri soldi

Se nel nostro piccolo facciamo del nostro meglio, chi ci governa ha intere strutture capaci di decidere come investire i nostri soldi.
Queste strutture sono state selezionate, oserei dire "giustamente", per collaborare con colossi della portata di IBM, la quale ha fornito la piattaforma di sviluppo configurata in modo tale da permettere di includere codice arbitrario all'interno di una pagina capace di mostrare avvisi, prendere informazioni (cookie) degli utenti navigatori e reindirizzarle altrove o, perchè no, includere interi siti all'interno dello stesso portale.

Tutto questo in un unico disservizio dal costo proibitivo ma capace di creare lavoro grazie ad una cifra che non richiede certamente una garanzia di fatturato.

Unica pecca è che non essendoci un albo dei professionisti di settore, non essendoci ancora un ente ufficiale capace di valutare le effettive capacità di settore, la selezione del personale sarebbe stata comunque e probabilmente all'italiana.

Il dubbio che questo sia accaduto lostesso è il fatto stesso che i responsabili del sito siano stati prontamente cancellati dalla pagina "chi siamo".

Tanti dunque gli avvenimenti percepibili in tempo reale dalla fatidica data di lancio.
Mentre la televisione non ha infatti dato alcuna notizia sul putiferio causato dall'uscita del portale, gli artefici dello stesso hanno provveduto a:

1. eliminare un'introduzione animata dal peso affatto contenuto della durata di 15 secondi con reindirizzamento dopo 18 secondi che impediva ad utenza di ogni tipo di accedere alle informazioni del portale


2. eliminare un'ulteriore introduzione "holliwoodiana" pesantissima per tutte le persone non servite da ADSL


3. risolvere problemi di caratteri illeggibili


4. risolvere alcuni problemi di inclusione codice grazie al debug effettuato gratuitamente da noi stessi, professionisti di settore


5. risolvere in tempi records, sempre grazie alle critiche ed ai consigli di noi stessi, il problema delle tabelle

Sembra quindi evidente che mentre stampa e televisione continuano a non raccontarci praticamente niente, qualcuno si è preso le proprie responsabilità e sta tentando di rimediare agli inopinabili errori tecnici presentati giorni fa con troppo entusiasmo.

Solo alcune domande, per concludere, che vorrei rivolgere a tutti coloro che hanno partecipato alla realizzazione di questo portale:

1. 3 anni per un un flop come questo non erano sufficienti per presentare un sito a norma di legge?


2. è possibile avere i dettagli, ente per ente e singolo incaricato per singolo incaricato, di come sono stati spesi i nostri soldi?


3. è possibile pretendere le vostre scuse nei confronti di chi questo lavoro se lo suda veramente e quotidianamente e che grazie a questo portale è stato ridicolizzato in tutto il mondo?


4. è possibile che a prescindere dal governo le cose in Italia vadano sempre per lo stesso verso?


5. cosa possiamo fare noi elettori per far si che i nostri rappresentanti o come dice Beppe Grillo "i vostri datori di lavoro" smettano di buttare via continuamente soldi e invece di aiutare a risolvere reali esigenze e problematiche della nazione, ci fanno semplicemente imbestialire?

Ora provate a dire che i conti non tornano, provate a pensare che "è strano che accadano certi fatti" ... provate a dire che siete orgogliosi di come veniamo rappresentati, tutto torna, tutto ha un filo logico ben definito: Welcome Italy.

A better Singleton pattern example

JavaScript Singleton examples are often not so correct.
In these pages for example, top Google search results, any showed code is a Singleton design pattern:

• A (Re)-Introduction to JavaScript, shows a "strange" function that's not Singleton


• Matías Giovannini shows a public static instance that doesn't rappresent Singleton


• Means Nothing talks about functions, not about Singleton


• Webreference shows a static public instance again, using underscore as "__" prefix and suffix ... but doesn't show a Singleton

Why these examples are not good enought?


As You can see, Singleton uses a private constructor and a static public method to get a uniq object instance.

// Java example
public class Singleton {

 // Private constructor suppresses generation of a (public) default constructor
 private Singleton() {}

 private static class SingletonHolder {
  private static Singleton instance = new Singleton();
 } 

 public static Singleton getInstance() {
  return SingletonHolder.instance;
 }
}

In JavaScript a constructor can't be private but It should has a private variable so why we should use a public static instance property when we could have a private one?

// Singleton pattern with JavaScript
function Singleton(instance) {
 if(!Singleton.getInstance) {
  Singleton.getInstance = function(){
   return instance;
  }; instance = new Singleton;
 };
}(new Singleton);

Constructor is public but it's assigned directly to have a single private instance that will be always the same everytime we call Singleton.getInstance public method.

function Me(
 instance // private class instance
) {

 // public static method (Singleton design pattern)
 if(!Me.getInstance) {
  Me.getInstance = function(){
   return instance;
  }; instance = new Me;
 };
 
 // generic public properties and methods
 
 this.name = "Andrea";
 this.surname = "Giammarchi";
 
 this.whois = function(){
  return this.name.concat(" ", this.surname);
 };
 
 
}(new Me);


// and now try to modify instance ...
var me = Me.getInstance(),
 others = new Me({name:"No", surname:"Others"}),
 you = Me.getInstance();
 
you.constructor.prototype = {
 name:"No",
 surname:"Changes"
};

Me.instance = {name:"Private", surname:"Scope"};

alert([
 me.whois(),
 others.whois(),
 you.whois()
].join("\n"));

alert(me === you && you === Me.getInstance());

The result is my name on first alert and true on second.
Is there a simple way to implement singleton with every class ? Of course :-)

Function.prototype.Singleton = function(instance){
 if(!this.getInstance) {
  this.getInstance = function(){
   return instance;
  };
 };
};


function Me(){
 this.name = "Andrea";
 this.surname = "Giammarchi";
 this.whois = function(){
  return this.name.concat(" ", this.surname);
 };
};
Me.Singleton(new Me);

var me = Me.getInstance();
me.blog = "webreflection";
alert(me === Me.getInstance() && me.blog === Me.getInstance().blog);

P.S. for MarCamp "fast demo": sorry guys, bad cut and paste on showed example, just add this line if You want to test the example (damn time !!!)

instance = new Singleton;

after getInstance declaration

45.000.000,00 Euro

www.italia.it ... 45.000.000 Euro, please Europe, HELP US !!!

Could I change a native function ?

Just a quick post about how to modify a document (and others generic objects) native methods.

// basic example
document.createElement = (function(createElement, Element){
 return function(nodeName){
  var element, key;
  try{element = createElement(nodeName)}
  catch(e){element = createElement.call(document, nodeName)};
  for(key in Element)
   element[key] = Element[key];
  return element;
 }
})(document.createElement, {});

What's that ?
... a really simple way to extend with your defined object each element created using document.createElement function.
This is an example with useful comments (I hope)

// redefine document.createElement native function
// using anonymous function
document.createElement = (
 function(
  // original document.createElementFunction
  createElement,
  
  // object used to extend created elements
  Element
 ){

  // new document.createElement function
  return function(
 
   // type of element (div, p, link, style ... )
   nodeName
  ){
 
   // element and key to loop over object
   var element, key;
   
   // IE like this
   try{element = createElement(nodeName)}
   
   // FireFox like that
   catch(e){element = createElement.call(document, nodeName)};
   
   // loop over Element
   for(key in Element)
 
   // and assign each method to new element
   element[key] = Element[key];

   // return created element
   return element;
  }
 })(
 // send to anonymous, the original function
 document.createElement,
 
 // send object used to extend created elements too
 {
  // read firstChild node
  read:function(){
   return this.firstChild.nodeValue
  },
 
  // write text into node
  write:function(text){
   this.appendChild(document.createTextNode(text))
  }
 }
);
  
// basic example
onload = function(){
 var div = document.createElement("div");
 document.body.appendChild(div);
 div.write("Hello World !!!");
 alert(div.read()); // Hello World !!!
};

That's all, and this method is only a basic native method override example, have fun with JavaScript :-)

GzOutput 0.5 finally approved !!!

PHPClasses has approved my last notable uploaded class, GzOutput :-)

Features

• compatible with both php version 4 and 5 (E_ALL | E_STRICT notice free)


• create runtime every kind of content-type with or without dedicated charset


• cache automatically every kind of file or file list (one or more JavaScript, CSS, XML, xHTML, TXT, others)


• decrease client download time (about 5 times faster!)


• increase server performances if cache option is enabled (about 3 times faster!)


• give you control with differents public static methods, easy to use, secure and portable


• "perfect" unobtrusive solution, compatible with every browser, every page parser (W3, WatchFire, WebSiteoptimizzation, others) and doesn't modify sources, just crunch them with different levels if you choose to crunch so you don't need any kind of packer, for example for your javascript files


• "forgettable solution", automatically update chached file when one or more required file has been changed

Use them to optimize your feeds, your javascripts, your css, your txt files ... or why not, every page of your portal, e-commerce or everything else.

Do you need an example ? My overbyte.Editor single script source use them from different weeks without any problem, using crunch level 2 and compression level 9.

Easy to configure and mod_reqrite ready.

Could be enought ?

Who's running to get Vista ?

Yesterday HTML.it posted a nice question about Vista: "If You have Vista or You'll install them quickly put your hand in the air".

This is just a mini report about users opinions (totally: 47) and I think these informations should be interesting:

• I'll install Vista as soon as I can or I just have Vista
  12.8 %
  


• I don't believe in Vista and I'll be on XP for many other months/years
  38.3 %
  


• I'm thinking to spend money for a Mac (with OSX) instead of Vista license
  8.5 %
  


• I'm thinking to install Ubuntu or I'll never instal Vista (I'm just on Ubuntu or other Linux distributions)
  40.4 %
  

So what are You waiting for to change your OS ? Get Linux !

bored with something to array convertion ? map them !

I'm rewriting my JSL to include by default inside my next project.
This project will include automatically a lot of standard JS 1.5 methods or functions, and Array.map is one of those.

While I'm testing some proto performances, I've thought about a really simple way to switch from an array or from a node list (getElementsByTagName) with a simple, fast and single line of function.

// old example version
// function _A(a){return [].map.call(a,function(a){return a})};

// new version, Daniel suggest, faster and doesn't require any prototype !
function _A(a){return [].slice.call(a)};

and that's all, do You like it ?

As first point, You need FireFox 1 or greater (or Mozilla if You prefere) or this short piece of code:

if(!Array.prototype.map) Array.prototype.map = function(callback){
 for(var i = 0, j = this.length, result = new Array(j), self = arguments[1], u; i < j; i++) {
  if(this[i] !== u)
   result[i] = callback.call(self, this[i], i, this);
 };
 return result;
};

Then You have "everything You need" to get quickly every iterable element.

These are just two examples

function sort(){
 return _A(arguments).sort().join("<br />");
};
document.writeln(sort("Luke", "Jabba", "Fenner"));
document.writeln(sort("c", "a", "b"));



var firstScript = _A(document.getElementsByTagName("script")).shift();
alert(firstScript);

var allUnorderedList = _A(document.getElementsByTagName("ul"));

alert(_A(null).constructor === Array); // true ;-)

These nice trick should be used with forEach method too.
Stop for and while loops, each them !

function changeLinks(onclick){
 [].forEach.apply(document.getElementsByTagName("a"),
  function(link){
   link.onclick = onclick;
 });
};

changeLinks(function(){
 window.open(this.href, "");
 return false;
});

... and sure, You need forEach prototype too ...

I suppose every other JS 1.5 Array method should be cool enought to work with DOM nodes too ... do You agree ?

Are thinking about performances ? Well guys, quite the same of generic loops, even faster (works in core) with every FireFox !!!

JavaScript Unobtrusive Security Form

In some cases JavaScript should be used to add more security during a client/servr interaction.

Paul Johnston knows this and tha's why He created md5 and sha1 hashing JavaScript implemntations.

You can choose to send just hashed form variables, to be sure, for example, that recieved stirngs are valid hash and they are present on db (removing sql injections problems).

You could even create special hashed strings too, to forget "man in the middle" problems, using a salt that will be generated and verified from server side code.

This hashed value could make your password more secure, requiring a kind of brute force that will be quite hard to do.

// man in the middle found the salt and the logging string
$try = 12345;
if(hash($salt.hash($try)))
echo 'Passwrod or collision found: '.$try;
else {
$try = 12346;
if(hash($salt.hash($try)))
// ... and again, again ..
// every time with a double hashed string ( slower than a single :D )
}

At the same time, this salt creates a collisions free hashed string, then a brute force operation should not be used to login in a form like this one because new salt , hashed with collision, will not produce a compatible authorizzation hashed string (or better, it's really difficult that a collision, hashed with a different string, will produce another collision).

This form is absolutely WAI-AAA WatchFire approved, valid W3C XHTML 1.1 and valid W3 CSS.
It's unobtrusive, works without JavaScript too (in a less secure way) and SecurityForm JavaScript function should be used in every kind of form, just modifing form and inputs id as You want.

This is a basic php example page, compatible with PHP 4.3 or 5 or 5.2, that shows how You should "drive correctly" login operation.

I hope code description is enought to understand this kind of form and I suggest to use sha1 instead of md5 (better security).

This is a short description:

1. Client verify user and pass, if these are not empty call form.action page to recieve a new salt ($salt = uniqid(rand(), true)) sending just userName


2. Server generates a new salt then it saves them on a simple table adding userName and time() so it sends them as SecurityForm onload callback


3. Client recieves this new uniq string and generates a logging variable
   

   
   logging = choosedHash(salt + choosedHash(userPassword))
   

   
   and redirects client to authentication page sending uniqid recieved from server, userName and loging
   


4. Server verify that salt table contains recieved salt and verify if found userName is the same of GET value, then verify that logging is a valid authorizzation string:
   

   
   // example query
   $query = 'SELECT * FROM user_list WHERE user = $user AND MD5(CONCAT($salt, pass)) = $logging';
   

   
   where pass is just hashed during registration


5. server removes recieved salt from table and other salts with expire less than time() - 30 seconds

... and that's all.
Are You sure, now, that your user with JS enabled are a bit more protected ? :-)
(of course, SSL is absolutely the best way to "ensure privacy" ... but You could implement this kind of form with SSL too)


What about compatibility list ?
Well, every JavaScript compatible browser, starting from IE 5 and every JavaScript disabled or uncompatible browser too.

a little error choosing byte family plugin namespace :D

Well ... not much things to tell You .. just sorry for my last plugin namespace choice.

Now that I know What does it mean (thanks to Dean and Mario) I've changed namespace, Welcome overbyte plugin library :D

(probably the uniq plugin I need is one for my English, not for my libraries ... :E)

prototype, singleton, what else ?

A lot or JS developers use prototype style to write (extends) classes (functions) or singleton to have a private scope.

I often use different ways to create my classes (function) and I use prototype only to extend and not to create.

These are some examples:

/** prototype style */
// class Blog
function Blog(){};

// prototype to extend Blog
Blog.prototype = {
 getName:function(){
  return this.name;
 },
 setName:function(name){
  this.name = name;
 },
 name:""
};


// how to use Blog class
var myblog = new Blog; 
// new Blog() with parenthesis is not useful.
// full prototype style "doesn't accept"
// parameters on constructor
// (or better, it accepts but doesn't use them)

myblog.setName("WebReflection");
// setName is absolutely necessary to set public
// name parameter

/** prototype style */



/** singleton style */
function Blog(name){
 return {
  getName:function(){
   return name;
   // name has a global scope
   // in this object, private
   // for every other external scripts
  }
 };
};

// how to use this Blog function
var myblog = Blog("WebReflection");

// Singleton style should accept one or more
// arguments on fake constractor.
// myblog is an instanceof Object and
// is not a Blog class (I've not used new to set this var)

The first important difference is that with Singleton you don't need to create setName because a blog name shouldn't be modified from other scripts (in this example).
Then why You should declare public parameter (classVar.name) or public methods (classVar.setName) when a property shouldn't be changable ?

This is a common full prototype style problem, everything is public and everything should be modified from other scripts.

In the other hand, with above Singleton example You don't create an instance of Blog, just recieve everytime a new Object.

With prototype = {something} Your varible will be an instance of className but constructor will be an Object while if You declare every method "manually" variable constructor will be exactly the original function.

function Person1(){};
Person1.prototype = {
 getClassName:function(){return "Person1"},
 isPerson1:function(){return this instanceof Person1}
};
var p1 = new Person1;
document.write([
 p1.getClassName(),
 p1.isPerson1(),
 p1.constructor,
 p1.constructor === Person1
] + "
");
// Person1,true,function Object() { [native code] },false


function Person2(){};
Person2.prototype.getClassName = function(){return "Person1"};
Person2.prototype.isPerson2 = function(){return this instanceof Person2};
var p2 = new Person2;
document.write([
 p2.getClassName(),
 p2.isPerson2(),
 p2.constructor,
 p2.constructor === Person2
]);
// Person1,true,function Person2() { },true

For many developers it is a feature, because they think that native code is faster than function eveluation (that should be performed every time) ... however, I've never seen performance differences from prototype style and other styles.
Think that func by func prototype doesn't work as single object too, then I suppose there are a lot of scripts that clones prototype (or extends them) using a for in loop and that these scripts doesn't perform better (if it's true) than others.

This is another way, not native, to have both instanceof class and private scope on object You should do something like that:

function Blog(name){
 this.getName = function(){
  return name;
  // as Singleton, name has
  // a global scope inside this
  // instance, private for
  // every other script
 };
};

// You could set private methods too ...
function Blog(name){

 // private method, global scope
 // inside this instance
 function setName(){
  selfname = arguments[0] || name;
 };

 // private variable
 var selfname;

 this.getName = function(){
  setName(name);
  return selfname;
 };
};

var myblog = new Blog("WebReflection");
// You have an instanceof class Blog with 
// a private internal scope and an external one

These kind of class instances are not possible to create with full prototype style and in this case evey instance will not be modified if other scripts changes Blog.prototype.getName with a new function.

function Blog(name){
 function setName(){selfname = arguments[0] || name};
 var selfname;
 this.getName = function(){
  setName(name);
  return selfname;
 };
};
Blog.prototype.getName = function(){
 return "prototype doesn't change anything";
};

var myblog = new Blog("WebReflection");
document.write(myblog.getName()); // WebReflection

So this way should be thought as "more secure" than others because created instance will not be affected by prototype changes on constructor or on global Object, however, Singleton should be secure too.

function Blog(){
 return {getName:function(){return "WebReflection"}}
};
Blog.prototype.getName = function(){
 return "override";
};
Object.prototype.getName = function(){
 return "override";
};

var myblog = new Blog;
document.write(myblog.getName()); // WebReflection

// if You don't use new ..
var myblog2 = Blog;
document.write(myblog2.getName()); // override

As I've said, the bad thing of singleton is that resulting variable will not be an instance of used className with or without new before declaration.


Last way, if You need a single object instance in your script, You should use this way too.

Blog = new function(){

 // private method
 function setName(){
  selfname = arguments[0] || name;
 };

 // private variable
 var selfname;

 // public method
 this.getName = function(){
  return selfname;
 };
 this.setName = function(name){
  setName(name);
 };
};

Blog.setName("WebReflection");
document.write(Blog.getName());

// what kind of instance ? ... it's an "anonymous secret"
document.write(Blog instanceof Function);  // false
document.write(Blog instanceof Blog.constructor);// true

This example is something like Singleton without the possibility to send arguments on constructor (and this one will not be a native Object code).
So this method has a "secret" constructor but You could extend them using Blog.constructor.prototype or extend another class using new Blog.constructor.
This example should be useful when You need a single instance of an anonymous function (a bit harder to be modified from other scripts) but remember that
to create a new instance You need GlobalObj.constructor and that other scripts should change a GlobalObj.construtor with prototype.

Now, this post is just to show different ways to create an "instance of something" ... but at this point I think that:

1. if native code constructr is really faster to execute, Singleton should be the better choice (private scope too)
   
2. if speed is important (and native code is really faster) but We don't need a private scope and We need to change every method/property of every className instance, prototype style is the better choice because We can know if a var is instance of a class and not only a generic instanceof Object.
   
3. if extreme speed is not a problem (or native code doesn't perform faster), the best solution should be the simple function, to know both constructor and instanceof ... but We can't change every var in a single line.
   
4. if we need a single anonymous instance, we could use the last example.
   

The third point limit, the possibility to change every instance of a class, should be solved with a simple Object proto

Object.prototype.syncronize = function(){
 for(var key in this.constructor.prototype)
  this[key] = this.constructor.prototype[key];
};

function Blog(name){
 function setName(){
  selfname = arguments[0] || name;
 };
 var selfname;
 this.getName = function(){
  setName(name);
  return selfname;
 };
};

var myblog = new Blog("WebReflection");
document.write([
 myblog.constructor === Blog,
 myblog instanceof Blog,
 myblog.getName()
]);
// true,true,WebReflection


Blog.prototype.getName = function(){
 return "override";
};

document.write([
 myblog.constructor === Blog,
 myblog instanceof Blog,
 myblog.getName()
]);
// true,true,WebReflection


myblog.syncronize();

document.write([
 myblog.constructor === Blog,
 myblog instanceof Blog,
 myblog.getName()
]);
// true,true,override

So, wich way do You like and Why ?

Dojo source ? 39,09 Kb generated in 0.0006 seconds

It's true, less than 40Kb for dojo.js packed file without any packer, just using my overbyte Editor

How ?
Just open dojo.js file (146Kb) with one text editor (sure, Notepad too), select all, copy and past them inside overbyte Editor working area.

Now click on download, and choose the first option as showed on image:


Save the file as dojo.php and test on your host ... so view page informations, it's less than 40Kb with all gz compatible browsers ;-)

What a news ?
The beautyful thing is that my auto-generated php file (about 300Kb) decodes this js source in less than 1 millisecond, exactly 0.0006 seconds on my "old" centrino 1.6 Ghz with Apache 2.2 and PHP 5.2 running on PAMPA !

If You consider that generated file doesn't require zlib or gzencode function, as bootstrap js or php solution, and is compatible with every php hosting solution, You can think that JS size is not a big problem because You should decrease about 5X the final size.

I don't know how many Kbytes should be a packed packer version without comments of the same file, using my Editor to generate the php page ... but don't worry, result page will be generated in less than 0.0006 seconds :-)


I don't believe You and I don't want to view your damn Editor
Well, You could view dojo.php file using this link ...

P.S. Hey Ajaxians, Why didn't You find interesting my Editor expreiment ?

overbyte Editor, from Alpha to Beta

Update !!!
overbyte Editor now has a Suggest Panel inside textarea !
It doesn't contain every function or method but it has a kind of intelligent code interaction, do You like it ? :D

---------------------------------------

Just a little update about my last experiment, overbyte Editor.

I've fixed a lot of bugs and now it should work correctly on IE5.5, IE6, IE7, FireFox 2 (probably 1.5 too) and Opera 9 (probably 8 too).

I don't know why Safari has some problem with menu and I'm working to solve Safari incompatibility, however, now this Editor is version beta, so You could test them or use without problems ( I mean without every Alpha release problems :D ).

Please report me bugs or features You think should be cool and good JavaScripting ! :-)

[edit]
I forget a detail ... using my GzOutput.class.php with bootstrap.php solution, this component size is less than 14Kb without jsmin :-)

jhp is about 12 Kb without jsmin too ... but I'm working on, this project will not be available so soon.

JavaScript get_class and is_a functions

Update a new version of get_class, works with prototype classes too.

We often need to know the type of a variable with JavaScript but every dedicated function, such typeof or instanceof, are not always perfect.

For example, the typeof a string, that should be declared as both primitive and object value, should be "string" or should be "object".

var $1 = "test",
 $2 = new String($1);

alert([
 typeof($2),  // object
 typeof($1),  // string
 $2 == $1,  // true
 $2 === $1,  // false
 $2 instanceof String, // true
 $1 instanceof String, // false

 $2.constructor === $1.constructor
    // true !!!
].join("\n"));

It's quite caotic ... but perfect, but every time We need to know if a variable is exactly that kind of variable We should
verify the typeof or the constructor and the instanceof ... little boring ?

With PHP We have two nice functions (... more than two, that's why I'm developing jhp) that are perfectly to know the class name of a variable or to know if that var "is a" class type.

These are my two proposal, one to know the generic class name of a variable and one to know if a variable is a class.

function get_class(obj){ // webreflection.blogspot.com
 function get_class(obj){
  return "".concat(obj).replace(/^.*function\s+([^\s]*|[^\(]*)\([^\x00]+$/, "$1") || "anonymous";
 };
 var result = "";
 if(obj === null)
  result = "null";
 else if(obj === undefined)
  result = "undefined";
 else {
  result = get_class(obj.constructor);
  if(result === "Object" && obj.constructor.prototype) {
   for(result in this) {
    if(typeof(this[result]) === "function" && obj instanceof this[result]) {
     result = get_class(this[result]);
     break;
    }
   }
  }
 };
 return result;
};
function is_a(obj, className){ // webreflection.blogspot.com
 className = className.replace(/[^\w\$_]+/, ""); // paranoia
 return  get_class(obj) === className && {function:1}[eval("typeof(".concat(className,")"))] && obj instanceof eval(className)
};

With get_class function You could know the name of the constructor of a variable.
This means that if You need a string, both primitive and object, You could simply do a check like this

if(get_class(somevar) === "String")
 // ... do stuff, the var is exactly a string

You could even use a switch

switch(get_class(somevar)) {
 case "String":
  alert(somevar);
  break;
 case "Number":
  somevar += 1;
  break;
 case "Boolean":
  somevar = !somevar;
  break;
};

... or if You prefere, a portable object ...

var operations = {
 String:function(v){document.write(v); return v},
 Number:function(v){return v + 1}
};
somevar = operations[get_class(somevar)](somevar);

Finally, if You want to know if a variable is exaclty a type of class You could use is_a, that's a deeper check than instanceof because doesn't verify only the instance name.

document.write([
 is_a(null, "Date"),  // false
 is_a(undefined, "Date"), // false
 is_a(Date, "Date"),  // false
 is_a(new Date, "Date"),  // true
 is_a({}, "Object"),  // true
 is_a([], "Array"),  // true
 is_a("", "String"),  // false
 is_a(new String(""), "String"), // true
 is_a(1, "Number"),  // false
 is_a(new Number(1), "Number"), // true 
 is_a(false, "Boolean"),  // false
 is_a(new Boolean(0), "Boolean"),// true
 is_a(/re/, "RegExp"),  // true
 is_a(Math, "Math"),  // false
 is_a(Math, "Object")  // true
].join("
"));

Simple JavaScript bootstrap solution

As WebSiteOptimization suggests external JavaScript files should be included "one time for all".
There are a lot of procedures to do that, using a server-side script to include and compress required files.
This simple anonymous function should do something like dynamic JavaScript inclusion, based on unobrtusive cross-browser function and really simple to use.

The concept is this one:
when You add a script on Your page this will be exactly the last script present on document so You could do some operation using its source.

bootstrap.js does it, and works as "includer" from first file name to last.

<script type="text/javascript" src="jsfolder/bootstrap.js?jsfile"></script>

In this example bootstrap will include jsfile.js that's inside jsfolder so You just need to include bootstrap.js file inside your dedicated JavaScript files folder.

You could load multiple JS too, using char "|" as separator

<script type="text/javascript" src="jsfolder/bootstrap.js?jsfile|otherfile|init"></script>

In this case bootstrap will load jsfile.js, then otherfile.js and finally init.js, everyone automatically from folder jsfolder.

// bootstrap resulting string for inclusion
jsfolder/jsfile.js
jsfolder/otherfile.js
jsfolder/init.js

If You need to include files with a different extension, You could simply add a suffix after last file name.

<script type="text/javascript" src="jsfolder/bootstrap.js?jsfile|otherfile|init#php"></script>

// bootstrap resulting string for inclusion
jsfolder/jsfile.php
jsfolder/otherfile.php
jsfolder/init.php

Then, for example, You could pack your js code using my overbyte Editor and call saved php files quickly.

You can use any kind of extension, then PHP is not required.

You can use more than one bootstrap too, copying bootstrap.js file inside every dedicated javascript folders.

Could be this an unobtrusive and alternative way to include dynamically your libraries and functions ? ... and it's less than 500 bytes :-)

Update
Now GzOutput php class supports something like bootstrap for JS, CSS and other kind of files.

You can test PHP 4 version or PHP 5, successful tested on E_ALL | E_STRICT error_reporting enviroment.

overbyte Editor and jhp

Happy New Year :-)

I would like to present my last idea, jhp, that's absolutely alpha and that requires "a special" component to be tested quickly ... and that's the reason of this post, a work in progress plugin for my byte family library, called overbyte Editor.

It's alpha version too and for some strange reason it doesn't work on Safari browser (but it doesn't show any error too ... ) but it's a simple online runtime JavaScript editor / debugger with some funny features that I've never seen on the net.

It's not a FireBug alternative, it's just a "quick and dirty" enviroment to test rapidly your scripts, functions, html pages and probably other.

overbyte Editor has some Extra special function, based on syncronous php interatcions or using jsmin to parse and test your code in one step.

It could open your files, save them or inject into a dedicated php file that should solve definitely bandwidth problems using both jsmin and gz features even on hosts that haven't zlib enabled (adapted version of GzOutput class without gzencode or gz_hendler).

You can read more about overbyte and jhp directly on Editor page, using About menu to read these and other Editor informations.

I'm waiting for your suggests, bug reports or comments,
bye bye :-)

[PHP] New version of GzOutput class

I've just updated my recent GzOutput.class.php (more recent than last file published on Ajaxian :D) and tested successful on many browsers.

The difference from other cache-manager files, functions or classes is that GzOutput is totally indipendent from folders or page type, You could use them to increase JSON responses (using text/plain as Content-Type) as well as XML, (X)HTML, CSS or every kind of document You need.

You could combine this class with a JavaScript compressor (to improve download speed) and you don't need to care about output changes because ETag is based on sha1 and not on every mktime of each file (it means better server performances).

The only think that You need to remember is that You don't need to write everything before to use this class (empty spaces, some char or pages can't be write before its usage).

Four public methods are really simple to use:

create, sending an output string and a Content-Type type to use cache if it's available (if not, forces next download to use cache)

createNew, sending an output and a Content-Type to force everytime the download (it's a must for Ajax interactions with XML, JSON or serialized strings)

createFromList, sending an array of files and a Content-Type to create a single generic output file including each file content and using create properties for output

createNewFromList, sending an array of files and a Content-Type to create a single generic output file including each file content and using createNew properties for output

That's all, do You like it ? :-)

PHP API Manager for Notepad++

I've used fantastic Komodo IDE to develop for a lot of time my Python/PHP web/desktop applications but now that my portable PC "has been regenerated" from SONY I'm spendig a lot of time to re-install everything I need.

My first favourite editor was ConTEXT, a fantastic, fast and powerful editor for every kind of program language but "my last love" has been Komodo that I've won on phpclasses.org.

Difference is amazing but there's just a problem .... Komodo is too much powerful and wants a lot of resources (I've not an extremely powerful VAIO) then I've choosed to install ConTEXT one more time but I've found, inside a forum, another famous editor as Notepad++ is and I don't know why I didn't try them before.

It's exactly what I need, a fast, simple, scite based, auto-completition enabled editor, then it's fantastic because I can write PHP as JavaScript, C and many other languages too !!!

Auto-completition is just what ConTEXT doesn't have but hey, it's a must to remember perfectly each kind of function or method because You can use them with CTRL and SPACE where You want then php.api file, as javascript.api files are a perfect solution to develop quickly without an api search engine under your nose ;-)


That's why I've created two really stupid PHP files to manage PHP API, one to create a personal installation dedicated api and one to update and mantain an api with old, unused or deprecated method too.

This is the readme file:

PHP API Manager - Andrea Giammarchi [http://webreflection.blogspot.com/]

These two simple phpfiles overwrite or create php.api file for Notepad++ program [http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/]

Usage:

 - notepad.dedicated.api.php

 call this file to create your personal PHP configuration api.
 This script create php.api file for Notepad++ program overwriting, if present, precedent php.api file version.
 Use this application if You don't need other not loaded/present extensions of your php installation.


 - notepad.update.api.php
 
 call this file to update your personal PHP configuration api or original Notepad++ default php.api file.
 This script create php.api file for Notepad++ program overwriting, if present, precedent php.api file version.
 Use this application if You want every other php functions too that shouldn't be present on your php installation.
 Please remember to copy old php.api file inside this folder before to launch this application.

And this is the link of downloadable zip file with these two php scripts (on title too).

Have fun with Notepad++ :-)

Firefox Multiple Vulnerabilities ? Update in few hours !

The Highly critical Secunia Advisory of 2006-12-19 is not a problem, FireFox 2.0.0.1 has been released in few hours !!!

You don't need to download this new version if you have auto update feature enabled because your FireFox will update by itself in a "couple of seconds".

I wonder when Microsoft Internet Explorer released an multiple patches update the day after after and then I wonder why You've not yet installed FireFox on your Windows, Mac or Linux computer!

This is quite a record for a browser and this is the complete FireFox 2 veulnerability report ... just 2 vulnerabilities and just one of them unpatched and it's a less critical problem.

This is "your" Internet Explorer 6 vulnerability report and this is the last version 7 of, again, Internet Explorer Browser vulnerability report with 3 bugs, one of them moderately critical and any of them patched.

So c'mon guys, what are You waiting for ? GetFirefox ;-)

IWA Italy didn't choose me !!!

The Web Skills Working Group selection is closed and the group is complete.

A lot of University members, a lot of Information Architect and a lot of IWA members ... but "any every day applications" certified or skilled developer, just people that write books, blog posts, do training courses every day and probably part of the same trainings that make italian ICT as is right now (unlikely often generally "ridi.culo.us" ...) ... well, I can't read about any skilled server and client (both!) developer in the Web 2.0 era (or probably I don't know Him/Her) ... but this group should tell us how should be a Web developer and what kind of certification He should have to be a real Web developer ... sure, one or more IWA certifications !

At this point, my first opinion is that V.U.E. certifications aren't a good start point (I've 2 official server and client certifications,PHP Engeener and AS2.0 - ECMAScript 3/4 Developer) and that my W3C/PHP/JavaScript/ActionScript skill and experience (about 8 years) isn't enought to be part of choosed professionists group ... I'm quite disappointed about that but I really ... really hope that next 3 months will be a revolution for italian Information and Communications Technology !

Well, Good Luck Web Skills Working Group, I hope you'll do an excellent work and I hope you'll find the right way to create real good Web developers and not just "fake Web Doctors" !!!

I'm waiting for your progresses, please respect our expectations, we believe in you ! :-)


[update]
this is just my opinion wrote in an italian forum