it's similar to Json, but no field names that get repeated for each record.
you do an ajax request , get the response and split it with "\n", now you have an array of records, then you split each record with "\t" and you've got a 2 dimensional array.. all the data in perhaps half the size. if you really want it as an array of objects you need a header record, which gets split with "/t" then loop thru it assigning the array elements to an object field. Does this sound like what you would need for extra light weight transport? I could draft a plugin, it's not rocket surgery! On 3/8/07, Daemach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jake, you are famous for this ;) > > Sounds great in theory but an example of how to accomplish this and the > reasoning behind that claim would be very helpful! > > I meant lightweight in terms of querying more than page size, by the way. I > should have been more clear. > > > > Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ wrote: > > > > if you're pushing the limit for 'light weight', consider simple tab > > delimited data! a simple header and you can convert it to Javascript > > in a few lines of code! Not as easy as an eval, but the speed will be > > worth it! > > > > On 3/8/07, Daemach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> While discussing json support in Cold Fusion with Rey Bango, I had a > >> small > >> flash of insight. It's a pretty easy matter to take a recordset or any > >> other structure, serialize it to JSON format and output that string > >> inside > >> of an eval() directly in the HTML itself. With jQuery and the ready() > >> function when the page loads you could have a client-side dataset ready > >> to > >> go. Why make ajax calls when you can query a client-side datasource for > >> things like an auto-complete list? > >> > >> So the questions are: > >> > >> -- What are the limits the browser can handle in terms of record count > >> and > >> still retain a lightweight feel? (depends on RAM, processor speed - I > >> know, > >> but generally...) > >> -- What would the optimal structure look like for searching given a > >> function > >> like an auto-complete form field? > >> -- Is a "for in" loop the best way to query or is there something more > >> efficient? > >> -- What benefits, if any, would this have for filtering/sorting a table? > >> > >> Or is this a bad idea to start with? Obviously ajax still has its place, > >> but it seems like this concept might work for some things... > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> http://www.nabble.com/Querying-javascript-datasources---what-factors-improve-speed-efficiency--tf3373312.html#a9387190 > >> Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> jQuery mailing list > >> discuss@jquery.com > >> http://jquery.com/discuss/ > >> > > > > > > -- > > Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ > > _______________________________________________ > > jQuery mailing list > > discuss@jquery.com > > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Querying-javascript-datasources---what-factors-improve-speed-efficiency--tf3373312.html#a9387322 > Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > -- Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
