Indeed. As I said, I got into making a plugin out of this. I changed the semantics, added some features (more to come) and of course, implemented it.
Here's a very simple demo. http://test.flesler.com/jquery.async/ Cheers On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Jeffrey Kretz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > I tend to agree. But either way, is a wait() function technically feasible? > > I tried hacking my way though it last night, and couldn't figure out the > implementation of code that would pause execution while a setInterval > function did it's work, and only THEN return the "this" jQuery object. > > Does anyone know how to solve the technical hurdle here? > > I guess you could call it "asynchronous setInterval" > > JK > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bohdan Ganicky > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 4:07 AM > To: jQuery Development > Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery > > > HI ricardobeat, > > I don't think this is a good idea. Most of the time I expect > everything to happen as fast as possible. Waiting is mostly good for > animations only and even that's not always true. At least that's how I > feel it. > > -- > Bohdan > > On Oct 23, 2:43 am, ricardobeat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's exactly what I said the day before, you pratically read my > > mind :]http://ejohn.org/blog/ultra-chaining-with-jquery/#comment-321336 > > > > What about making all methods 'wait' by default? That's what most > > people expect anyway, people new to jQuery only find out the > > animations run "in parallel" when they happen to casually chain > > something with it. Then you could pass a 'skip' argument if you wanted > > it to run immediatelly. Wouldn't be backwards compatible, but I wonder > > how many apps would break because of this, haven't seen anyone > > chaining animation methods. > > > > - ricardo > > > > On 20 out, 14:50, "Jeffrey Kretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > It seems that the tricky part is that the hide() function (as in all > > > animation functions) use a setInterval, but return the "this" object > > > immediately. > > > > > Ohhh. I have an idea. > > > > > What if the wait() function set a flag in the object saying this object > is > > > waiting for an animation to finish. > > > > > Then, any subsequent jQuery.fn methods that are called get added to a > queue > > > to be executed after the animation is finished. > > > > > Once the animation is done, the wait flag is turned off and jQuery.fn > > > methods are executed immediately as usual. > > > > > So it would look like this: > > > > > jQuery("div").hide("slow") > > > .wait() > > > .addClass("done") > > > .find("span") > > > .addClass("done") > > > .end() > > > .show("slow") > > > .wait() > > > .removeClass("done") > > > .find("span") > > > .removeClass("done"); > > > > > JK > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > > > > Behalf Of nikomomo > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 1:01 AM > > > To: jQuery Development > > > Subject: [jquery-dev] Re: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery > > > > > First, you can do that with the callback parameter. > > > > > jQuery("div").hide("slow") > > > .wait() > > > .addClass("done") > > > .find("span") > > > .addClass("done") > > > .end() > > > .show("slow", function() { > > > $(this).removeClass("done"); > > > }) > > > > > But to create a wait() function, I think you have to create a lock/ > > > semaphore (a simple counter), incremented in jQuery.anime (or anything > > > that create a timer callback?), decremented at the end of the anime, > > > and tested in the wait() function. > > > > > On 20 oct, 00:29, "Jeffrey Kretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > That's an interesting idea -- personally I like this syntax a lot. > > > > > > But because javascript isn't a true multithreading environment, I > wonder > > > if > > > > this would be possible at all. > > > > > > It's not like the wait() function can detect for the existence of an > > > > animation, pause execution until the animation is done, and only then > > > return > > > > the "this" object. > > > > > > Does anyone know if there's a way to create such behavior? > > > > > > JK > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > > > > > Behalf Of xwisdom > > > > Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 12:43 PM > > > > To: jQuery Development > > > > Subject: [jquery-dev] RE: Ultra-Chaining with jQuery > > > > > > Sorry Guys but I could not find the thread mentioned on John's > > > > website:http://ejohn.org/blog/ultra-chaining-with-jquery/ > > > > > > Anyway, the chaining system looks ok but rather than using a chain() > > > > metod how about using a wait() method that would block or process > > > > succeeding calls after the preceding call has been completed: > > > > > > jQuery("div").hide("slow") > > > > .wait() > > > > .addClass("done") > > > > .find("span") > > > > .addClass("done") > > > > .end() > > > > .show("slow") > > > > .wait() > > > > .removeClass("done") > > > > > > Just my 2cents > > > > > > > -- Ariel Flesler http://flesler.blogspot.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jQuery Development" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
