Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Programming Television

HTML5 App For Panasonic TVs Rejected - JQuery Is a "Hack" 573

Posted by samzenpus
from the lets-try-this-again dept.
An anonymous reader writes "I have been working on an HTML5 app for Panasonic VIERA TVs, specifically a client for the Plex Media Server. After paying $129 for the developer program, version 1.0 was submitted for inclusion in their VIERA Connect marketplace several weeks ago. After a few requested tweaks, they inquired about how the client communicated with the Plex Server. As many/most web developers do, I used jQuery and its $.ajax call (which is just a wrapper for XMLHttpRequest()). They insisted this was not standard Javascript, and after several communications with them, they replied back with "A workaround like this is considered a hack.". I'm stunned that anyone familiar with HTML would consider jQuery a hack. I've been patient in attempting to explain how jQuery works, but I am getting nowhere. Any thoughts on how I can better explain jQuery to an app reviewer? Yes, I know I can write my app without any Javascript library, but I am really hoping avoid that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HTML5 App For Panasonic TVs Rejected - JQuery Is a "Hack"

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:09PM (#46169279)

    jQuery is a hack too?

    I learned two things today.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 06, 2014 @12:52AM (#46170499)

      They don't say that jQuery is a hack. They say that using features like XMLHttpRequest directly (or via a 3rd party library) and not using the Panasonic API is a "hack" around their TOS. Submitter fails at reading comprehension.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        I have heard similar things from other developers who think they can just throw a web app on a TV. A TV is an appliance and Panasonic only make high end ones, so they demand quality and reliability. They also require compatibility over a number of devices with a number of different user input devices. Many devs seem clueless to these requirements.

    • by c0lo (1497653) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @01:14AM (#46170607)

      jQuery is a hack too?

      Vanilla.js [vanilla-js.com]. Have a look over their jQuery/Vanilla-JS comparison examples and consider if you really want jQuery.
      At a glance:

      Vanilla JS is a fast, lightweight, cross-platform framework for building incredible, powerful JavaScript applications.
      ...
      Vanilla JS makes everything an object, which is very convenient for OO JS applications.
      Native support for HTML5 and other cutting-edge technologies makes me keep coming back to Vanilla JS, time after time.
      Vanilla JS is the lowest-overhead, most comprehensive framework I've ever used.

    • by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @06:25AM (#46171887) Homepage Journal

      use the non-minified version.

      when you submit stuff that gets vetted by some moderation into online javascript appstores-within-apps-or-devices then it is STANDARD PRACTICE to submit non-minified code for readability.

      the theory is that they can see that you're not going to do anything to hack the tv, spotify or whatever. this is standard on all that I've submitted apps into.

      and no, they don't actually read the code and see what it does.

      so use the non-minified version.

  • by mi (197448) <slashdot-2012@virtual-estates.net> on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:13PM (#46169323) Homepage

    Any thoughts on how I can better explain jQuery to an app reviewer?

    Where I work, there is an entire group of people, whose sole task is communicating with Apple's app-reviewers. Any time a new app is submitted, they even include a list of reasons, that led to another app of ours getting rejected earlier — with the explanations on why each of those reasons was invalid.

    It is never an easy process...

    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:44PM (#46169587) Journal
      Not that this makes either Panasonic or Apple 'better' in any way; but what strikes me as insane is that Panasonic would feel that they are in the position to be all fiddly and demanding about 'apps' submitted for their 'smart TV' platform.

      Apple, as obnoxious as their control freakery has always been, undeniably have a walled garden that people would fight like dogs to get their applications into. Their position, in terms of platform ownership, is unbelievably enviable. They can be dicks all they like; because what are you going to do about it?

      Panasonic? One of the largely-interchangeable makers of perfectly adequate but not thrilling TVs, pretty much every last one of which has a shitty 'smart TV' platform, all braindead in somewhat different and incompatible ways? What kind of leverage do they think they have?
      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        They don't want millions of shitty apps. Panasonic are not trying to build a giant 50" tablet. They don't need 197 cracked screen and 593 torch apps for their TVs. They want quality apps that add useful features like the ability to watch YouTube/iPlayer/Netflix. Maybe a few games, but it's mostly video. They have a rather good Skype app too.

        They don't want shovelware. They don't want apps that break after a year or two because some vital service went away or the developer can't be bothered to update their h

  • Psh, jQuery. (Score:5, Informative)

    by ibneko (1080947) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:13PM (#46169325)
    http://youmightnotneedjquery.c... [youmightno...jquery.com] ;)
    • by ATMAvatar (648864) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:17PM (#46169369) Journal
      -1 not enough jQuery [doxdesk.com]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cheater512 (783349)

      Oh man so many of those examples are ridiculous.

      Look you don't need jQuery! You just type 20 lines of code and it does the same thing as jQuery's 1 line of code.
      See? jQuery isn't needed at all.

      • Re:Psh, jQuery. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:50PM (#46169641)

        The point was that if you are only using one or two of these function consider writing your own equivalent function instead of including the entire jQuery library.

        • Re:Psh, jQuery. (Score:5, Informative)

          by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmytheNO@SPAMjwsmythe.com> on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @11:08PM (#46169773) Homepage Journal

          There are too many programmers who don't think that way. They'd rather include huge libraries, than write a few lines of code.

          It is their (Panasonic's) platform. If they don't want jQuery, don't use jQuery. That seems simple enough.

          I've had headaches where I had to put on some dev's code, that required a massive number of libraries. They didn't mind, because their dev machine had them all. They usually can't even say what libraries are really required, it's a game of "lets figure out why their app doesn't work."

          I'm logged into one server in particular. One app, 39 different libraries had to be added in addition to the standard libraries included on the system. Some of those would be redundant, except they "wrote" their code with snippets from various places online that seem to do what they want. If you go back and ask what some of them do, they can't even really explain them.

          • by mdielmann (514750)

            So, your alternative is to write all the code yourself? Where do you draw the line? "Standard" libraries? Who defines standard, and for what? As a note, this is why libraries were made - lots of commonly used functions of a particular nature kept in one place - not for some threshold that I have to use before it's acceptable. Just how many calls to math.h do I have to make before it's alright to include it instead of hand-coding it myself?

            I'm not completely disagreeing with your thinking, and that app

            • Re:Psh, jQuery. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by JWSmythe (446288) <jwsmytheNO@SPAMjwsmythe.com> on Thursday February 06, 2014 @06:31AM (#46171923) Homepage Journal

              I think we're about on the same page. I use libraries as needed. If I can use one library to do 4 functions well, I won't use 4 different libraries to half-ass it because I found code in a forum post somewhere, and didn't want to think beyond "hey, lets copy & paste this in!" I won't include a library to save myself 3 (or 10) lines of code that I could put into my own function. On occasion, where I only needed a few lines of a huge library, I copy it (license permitting, of course), and note where and why I got it.

              He didn't give us a lot to go on for this argument. He was doing something. He wanted to use jQuery. Panasonic said "no". He's complaining that they refused it. It wasn't even clear if he included jQuery with his code, or if he was calling it from Google or elsewhere. (i.e., <script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.10.2/jquery.min.js">) Including it with the code guarantees it won't get updated, ever. Calling it from elsewhere means that the TV must have Internet access to operate that function, which can't be guaranteed. You could quite literally have a bunch of apps, all using different versions of jQuery, wasting memory or storage space, when the functions could have been done in a few lines each, or it may have been unnecessary and leftover from during the dev cycle and never cleaned up.

              From here: https://developers.google.com/... [google.com]
              They provide ajax.googleapis.com access to versions: 2.0.3, 2.0.2, 2.0.1, 2.0.0, 1.10.2, 1.10.1, 1.10.0, 1.9.1, 1.9.0, 1.8.3, 1.8.2, 1.8.1, 1.8.0, 1.7.2, 1.7.1, 1.7.0, 1.6.4, 1.6.3, 1.6.2, 1.6.1, 1.6.0, 1.5.2, 1.5.1, 1.5.0, 1.4.4, 1.4.3, 1.4.2, 1.4.1, 1.4.0, 1.3.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.0, 1.2.6, 1.2.3

              What happens if next year Google decides not to host jQuery, or say all the pre 2.x versions. It could go the way of all those lovely Google Maps API sites that were v1 and many v2 sites. It's less than idea to force users to update. Users are dumb. That makes a support nightmare for them, for reasons the users simply won't understand.

              If his code was very needy of the jQuery library, I could see it as being reasonable, but we can only guess. I know there's lots of cool stuff that can be done with it. I've only done some. :)

    • by Hewligan (202585)

      So, from that I see that you might not need JQuery if everyone is using an up-to-date version of IE (or something that's not IE). Good luck with that.

    • by GryMor (88799)

      Several of the examples are either incomplete or not cross browser compatible. Pretty much all of them are rather more verbose than the equivalent jQuery, and NONE of them support proper chaining.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:16PM (#46169347)

    I wonder if /. Is trying to put out a story that will attract actual answers, given that 90% of all the comments in the community today have been about the bloat of beta.slashdot.org instead of the topic presented in the summary.

    As for the actual topic:

    What are the reasons, other than time and it's associated costs, for not wanting to do without a javascript binary, just so you can use JQuery? It's been a trend I have been seeing lately with embedded devices (like TVs) being treated like they were desktop computers with gobs and gobs of resources to blow, and where deploying a large multipurpose binary for a single (or small number of) function(s) is commonplace.

    Throwing a big multipurpose library in there can pose a significant security risk (from the company's PoV anyway) because the library can do much more than just handle the small number of things you want it to, and some of those things can be undesirable.

    Other than the costs to time, what are your reasons for wanting to use a multipurpose javascript engine for such a narrow scope?

  • Boycott (Score:4, Informative)

    by chebucto (992517) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:17PM (#46169357) Homepage

    On February 5, 2014, Slashdot announced through a javascript popup that they are starting to "move in to" the new Slashdot Beta design.

    Slashdot Beta is a trend-following attempt to give Slashdot a fresh look, an approach that has led to less space for text and an abandonment of the traditional Slashdot look. Much worse than that, Slashdot Beta fundamentally breaks the classic Slashdot discussion and moderation system.

    If you haven't seen Slashdot Beta already, open this [slashdot.org] in a new tab. After seeing that, click here [slashdot.org] to return to classic Slashdot.

    I propose that we boycott stories and only discuss the abomination that is Slashdot Beta until Dice abandons the project.

    Moderators - only spend mod points on comments that discuss Beta
    Commentors - only discuss Beta

    Keep this up for a few days and we may finally get the PHBs attention.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This new interface is horrible. It is simply not as easy to consume information as the current.

      I am challenged to keep up with the updates from every information source to which I subscribe. This would be a significant barrier to my daily use of this site.

    • Hear hear. I've gone back to Classic and I'm afraid to look at Beta in case I can't return. I like being able to see at a glance if anyone has replied to my comments and what score I got for them. Couldn't do that in Beta last time I looked. In fact I found it almost impossible to find my comments, it's as if my comments were lost.

  • by 2phar (137027) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:18PM (#46169379)
    Reddit isn't going to work. I like Hackaday.. But really, where is the best alternative? Can't use Slashdot much longer with this Beta.
    • by OzPeter (195038) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @11:38PM (#46170003)

      Reddit isn't going to work.
      I like Hackaday..

      But really, where is the best alternative? Can't use Slashdot much longer with this Beta.

      Go to Ars .. and read the stories 3 days before here. Or go to Mac Rumors if you are a fanboy :P

      • by Anubis IV (1279820) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @11:54PM (#46170113)

        I read MacRumors, but strictly for the news. The commenting is horrible. And Ars' reporting is decent, but its commenting system isn't great either.

        I read Slashdot for the comments. Slashdot has managed to hang onto a diverse group of intelligent people, and it's really the only place on the 'net where I can vehemently disagree with someone, go through a little back and forth with them, and have a reasonable expectation that at the end of our discussion, one of us (me as often as not) will come around to agree with the other person's viewpoint. It's rare that people on the Internet are actually willing to admit when they are wrong or when someone presents a compelling argument that contradicts their own, yet time and again, I've seen Slashdot users do just that, and it's what I love about the place. That, and experts in their respective fields are actually present and willing to weigh in with details and layman's explanations for those of us who may only have a passing knowledge of their field.

    • by Misagon (1135) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @12:43AM (#46170449)

      Slashcode, which the site runs on is open source. Could we create a new, independent Slashdot that runs classic Slashcode ... and get it to host the same community as is hosted here?

      Slashdot is based on user content. Once enough users are as active on the new site as they are on the old, the new site will be viable as a replacement.

      Some users would have to work on the old site to submit and upvote "stories" with posters and links to the new site, to make people understand which site that they should migrate to.

  • I kind of agree (Score:4, Informative)

    by DrPBacon (3044515) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:27PM (#46169475)
    JQuery is a hack. A useful one, but still a hack. You should be accountable for all your production code, and there's really nothing jQuery does that you can't do yourself with only a little more effort. http://youmightnotneedjquery.c... [youmightno...jquery.com] #incaseyoumissedit
    • by duckgod (2664193) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @11:03PM (#46169739)
      I would have modded you flamebait since you are using a reference that contradicts your statement in the first line on the site.- "jQuery and its cousins are great, and by all means use them if it makes it easier to develop your application."http://youmightnotneedjquery.c... [youmightno...jquery.com] #incaseyoumissedit
    • by radish (98371)

      You could say the same for any library in any language. Hell, you could say the same for a compiler. Or an assembler.

      • by mdielmann (514750)

        Or the common libraries included with, but not integral to, your OS. Or the OS itself.

        This sounds like the rantings of someone who would prefer to reinvent the wheel for every project. And then complain about maintaining all that one off code.

  • The Beta is horrible (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DogDude (805747) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:34PM (#46169513) Homepage
    The Beta of Slashdot is horrible.

    Sadly, I'm going to be moving on from Slashdot, but I don't know of anywhere on the Net has such good discussions with such relatively intelligent people. The stories on Slashdot often suck, but the moderation moderation, I think, is what has kept it such a great place to have discussions. Is there any other site that has similar moderation?
  • by sootman (158191) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:37PM (#46169527) Homepage Journal

    You had the unfortunate luck of having your story picked up during the middle of the slashdot beta shitfest, so most of the comments here will be about that. My condolences. (Also: the new beta sucks.)

    Explain that jquery is not a hack or a workaround. It is a framework that is itself written in -- ta da! -- 100% valid javascript. Tell them it is nothing more than a collection of well-written, consistent, standards-based, heavily-reviewed and -tested code, and all it does is contain some pre-written libraries to make it easier to do common tasks.

    It is sponsored by [jquery.org] many large companies, including Wordpress, BlackBerry, Intel, Mozilla, and Adobe, to pick just the most recognizable names from that page.

    According to this [lineofthought.com], it is used by Google, Facebook, AOL, ESPN, and whitehouse.gov. This [pingdom.com] 20-month old page also has a big list: WordPress.com, Pinterest, Reddit, MSN.com, WordPress.org, Amazon, Yandex, Microsoft.com, GO.com, Ask.com, ESPN, Craigslist, About.com, Go Daddy, Stack Overflow, Huffington Post, Instagram, Slideshare, Fox News, The Guardian, Etsy, LiveJournal, and Weather.com

  • by mclearn (86140) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:39PM (#46169553) Homepage

    If I am forced out of Classic, I will leave and never look back.

    Fuck beta.

  • by ysth (1368415) on Wednesday February 05, 2014 @10:55PM (#46169683)

    Reading the actual email they sent, it sounds to me like they provide a (javascript) API for doing what "VieraApp" is instead doing with a direct ajax call (and jQuery vs XMLHttpRequest is not the issue; it's not using their wrapper that is the issue).

  • by ikhider (2837593) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @12:19AM (#46170309)
    It's kind of clean and pretty...
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by dysmal (3361085)
      Beta is like that hot chick i met in Tijuana. I wanted to explore. I wanted to experiment. Most importantly, i wanted all of my friends know what i had within my grasp! Now that i've gotten home, i'm afraid Beta infecting myself + world + dog.
  • Beta (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jadeus (58441) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @12:25AM (#46170345)

    JQuery compared to Slashdot Beta:

    The difference between knowing your shit and knowing you're shit.

  • by radarskiy (2874255) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @12:50AM (#46170487)

    The reviewer did not say that jQuery was a hack. The review said that using jQuery to avoid using their predefined interface was a hack.

    Whether that interface is so bad that you are driven to use a workaround to get anything done I cannot say. However, you will get nowhere if you argue against an imagined response.

  • BETA discussion (Score:5, Informative)

    by mugnyte (203225) on Thursday February 06, 2014 @03:30AM (#46171183) Journal

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre

Working...