Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    text
    copied!<p>Probably the best way to understand the difference is to download both examples and poke around at them yourself in Firebug, Fiddler, or similar.</p> <p>These screenshots of the network traffic for both make it pretty clear though (both of these pages do exactly the same thing, one with jQuery and one with MicrosoftAjax.js):</p> <p>Using MicrosoftAjax.js:</p> <p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/2OKfW.png" alt="enter image description here"></p> <p>Using jQuery:</p> <p><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/uDGNd.png" alt="enter image description here"></p> <p>I'm not sure why the difference is only 90k now (but there's also an additional HTTP request too). Something to do with the version of the MSAjax.js scripts served under 3.5/4.0 vs. the 2.0 ones I was using back when I wrote that, I think.</p> <p>Even if your caching is configured correctly and those WebResource/ScriptResource scripts are cached, it's difficult to get the JS service proxy cached (<code>jsdebug</code> in the screenshot above), which you'll have to download once for every corresponding ASMX/WCF service you've referenced through the ScriptManager. Those can get fairly large too (take a look at YourService.asmx/js or YourService.asmx/jsdebug to get an idea), whereas <em>no</em> service proxy is necessary for the jQuery approach. That whole proxy exists simply to enable the <code>YourService.YourMethod()</code> calling syntax, vs. specifying the <code>YourService.asmx/YourMethod</code> path yourself. The difference in convenience is negligible; not worth the overhead IMO.</p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload