Hello Diogo,
Your last implementations are still not compatible with other document
contexts themselves. Most of the difference in performance comes from
the overhead of checking the ownerDocument and corresponding
documentElement for the element, and you left that out of the
equation. It seems to me the gain in speed is marginal in comparison
to the code size and obscurity :)
BTW, do you mind sharing your test setup for these? I'm getting much
lower times for 1000 iterations.
cheers,
-ricardo
On 4 dez, 02:15, Diogo Baeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alright... I made some tests, but now keeping support for iframes and
> XML documents. Though hoping not to be boring everyone here, I'd like to
> share the results (same 1000 iterations) - note that some of them expect
> a context argument, if you're willing to use iframes or XML (maybe we
> have least situations like these, am I right?):
>
> - IMPLEMENTATIONS:
>
> $.fn.inDOM4 = function() {
> var el = this[0], doc = el && el.ownerDocument &&
> el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
> return !!doc && (doc.contains ? doc.contains(el) :
> !!(doc.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16));
> };
>
> // Fifth implementation, including extra methods (that might be
> usefull) in jQuery
> $.contains = docEl.contains ?
> function(a, b) {
> return a && b && a != b && a.contains(b);
> } :
> function(a, b) {
> return a && b && a != b && !!a.compareDocumentPosition(b) & 16;
> };
> $.fn.contains = function(el) {
> return $.contains(this[0], el);
> };
> $.fn.inDOM5 = function(contextEl) {
> var doc = contextEl || document.documentElement;
> return $.contains(doc, this[0]);
> };
>
> $.fn.inDOM6 = function() {
> var el = this[0], doc = el && el.ownerDocument &&
> el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
> return $.contains(doc, this[0]);
> };
>
> $.fn.inDOM7 = docEl.contains ?
> function(contextEl) {
> var el = this[0], doc = contextEl || document.documentElement;
> return doc && el && doc != el && docEl.contains(el);
> } :
> function(contextEl) {
> var el = this[0], doc = contextEl || document.documentElement;
> return doc && el && doc != el &&
> !!(docEl.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> };
>
> - PERFORMANCE RESULTS:
>
> ===== inDOM4 =====
> start: 1228363385834 ms
> end: 1228363385916 ms
> difference: 82 ms
>
> ===== inDOM5 =====
> start: 1228363386080 ms
> end: 1228363386124 ms
> difference: 44 ms
>
> ===== inDOM6 =====
> start: 1228363386319 ms
> end: 1228363386391 ms
> difference: 72 ms
>
> ===== inDOM7 =====
> start: 1228363386563 ms
> end: 1228363386601 ms
> difference: 38 ms
>
> Also, I'm tending to think "isOrphan", as suggested before (was it
> Mevin?), is a more adequate name (considering a boolean inversion in the
> function return), since a code like "if (el.isOrphan()) return;" seems
> more readable to me... what do you guys think?
>
> And sorry for the numerous postings... :-)
>
> Diogo
>
> Ariel Flesler escreveu:
>
> > For an element from any other document.
>
> > Examples:
> > - IFrames
> > - XML
> > - Other documents
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Diogo Baeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Alright, but what is the difference between "document" and
> >> "el.ownerDocument"? I tested:
>
> >> alert(document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0].ownerDocument == document);
>
> >> And it returns true... which are the cases where this may return false?
>
> >> Diogo
>
> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> That's what I was sort of suggesting, el.ownerDocument.documentElement,
> >>> that is.
>
> >>> As someone said (don't recall and don't wanna read up), good browsers
> >>> (w3) do set ownerDocument to null when the node is outside any
> >>> document.
>
> >>> Assuming that's true:
>
> >>> $.fn.inDOM = function(){
> >>> var elem = this[0],
> >>> doc = el && el.ownerDocument && el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
>
> >>> return !!doc && (doc.contains ?
> >>> doc.contains(el)
> >>> : !!(doc.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16)
> >>> );
> >>> };
>
> >>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 4:15 PM, ricardobeat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>> Why not simplify?
>
> >>>> $.fn.inDOM = function(){
> >>>> var el=this[0];
> >>>> if (!el) return false;
> >>>> var doc = el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
> >>>> return (doc.contains)
> >>>> ? doc.contains(el)
> >>>> : !!(doc.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >>>> };
>
> >>>> 36ms vs 12ms for Diogo's 'inDOM3Optimized', but keeps it compatible
> >>>> with other 'document' contexts. That's 1000 iterations, I don't see
> >>>> anyone having thousands of elements that he doesn't know if are in the
> >>>> DOM or not. It works in all target browsers, so the parentNode
> >>>> fallback is not needed.
>
> >>>> Ariel, is there any situation where a node has no ownerDocument/
> >>>> documentElement property?
>
> >>>> - ricardo
>
> >>>> On Dec 3, 11:21 am, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Those functions relying on $('html') wouldn't work for xml or some
> >>>>> other special kind of document (namespaced tagnames?).
>
> >>>>> I think it is indeed better to rely on the documentElement of the
> >>>>> ownerDocument (if the latter exists else just false).
>
> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:40 AM, Diogo Baeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Diego, if I can recall, I already tested el.ownerDocument and, in
> >>>>>> IE6,
> >>>>>> it always returned true in Boolean test, even if the element was
> >>>>>> removed.
>
> >>>>>> The "bifurcated" implementation was tested in all browsers with
> >>>>>> success
> >>>>>> (except for FF2, which I didn't have in my machine at the time): FF3,
> >>>>>> IE6, IE7, Safari 3.1.2 and Opera 9.62.
>
> >>>>>> About the method name, it's a good point... ok by me to change it to
> >>>>>> "isOrphan" and invert the return from the past implementation...
>
> >>>>>> I also updated the implementations and testing in the benchmark,
> >>>>>> putting
> >>>>>> a "return false" if no element is false (correcting, thus, the bugs
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>> when the elements were removed from DOM) and setting $('#level10') to
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> variable (in the "deep-level" testing), thus eliminating the need for
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> new traversal in every loop iteration. Here they are:
>
> >>>>>> ----- IMPLEMENTATIONS:
>
> >>>>>> $.fn.inDOM1 = function() {
> >>>>>> return !!$(this).parents('html').length;
> >>>>>> };
>
> >>>>>> $.fn.inDOM2 = function() {
> >>>>>> var el = this[0];
> >>>>>> if (!el) return false;
> >>>>>> while (el.parentNode) el = el.parentNode;
> >>>>>> return el.nodeType == 9;
> >>>>>> };
>
> >>>>>> $.fn.inDOM3 = function() {
> >>>>>> var el = this[0];
> >>>>>> if (!el) return false;
> >>>>>> var html = $('html').get(0);
> >>>>>> return html.contains ?
> >>>>>> html != el && html.contains(el) :
> >>>>>> !!(html.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >>>>>> };
>
> >>>>>> var docEl = document.documentElement;
> >>>>>> $.fn.inDOM3Optimized = docEl.contains ?
> >>>>>> function() {
> >>>>>> var el = this[0];
> >>>>>> if (!el) return false;
> >>>>>> return docEl != el && docEl.contains(el);
> >>>>>> } :
> >>>>>> function() {
> >>>>>> var el = this[0];
> >>>>>> if (!el) return false;
> >>>>>> return !!(docEl.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >>>>>> };
>
> >>>>>> --- PERFORMANCE RESULTS:
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM1: parents("html") =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270728766 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270729258 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 492 ms
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM2: parentNode =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270729274 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270729437 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 163 ms
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM3: html.contains() =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270729450 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270729808 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 358 ms
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM3Optimized: html.contains() =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270729821 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270729911 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 90 ms
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM2: traversing 10 levels =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270729924 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270730161 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 237 ms
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM3Optimized: traversing 10 levels =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270730173 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270730184 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 11 ms
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM2: after removal =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270730198 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270730382 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 184 ms
>
> >>>>>> ===== inDOM3Optimized: after removal =====
> >>>>>> start: 1228270730395 ms
> >>>>>> end: 1228270730405 ms
> >>>>>> difference: 10 ms
>
> >>>>>> Note: inDOM2 is the impl. using parentNode, and inDOM3 is the one
> >>>>>> using
> >>>>>> special methods ("bifurcated code").
> >>>>>> Note 2: the speed in "inDOM3Optimized" changed a lot just because I
> >>>>>> setted $('level10') to a variable before all the tests. This
> >>>>>> strengthens
> >>>>>> the performance reason to favor the "bifurcated code" implementation.
> >>>>>> ;-)
>
> >>>>>> If everybody agrees with the method name change (to "isOrphan"),
> >>>>>> which
> >>>>>> is OK by me, I can do it in the benchmarks to keep consistency with a
> >>>>>> possible future version of jQuery.
>
> >>>>>> Diogo
>
> >>>>>> Diego Perini escreveu:
>
> >>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>> I believe there is an error, probably you meant:
>
> >>>>>>> $.fn.inDOM = document.documentElement.contains ?
> >>>>>>> function() {
> >>>>>>> var el = this[0], root = el.ownerDocument.documentElement;
> >>>>>>> return root !== el && root.contains(el);
> >>>>>>> } :
> >>>>>>> function() {
> >>>>>>> var el = this[0];
> >>>>>>> return !!
> >>>>>>> (el.ownerDocument.documentElement.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
> >>>>>>> };
>
> >>>>>>> or if you prefer in the declaration "var el =
> >>>>>>> this[0].ownerDocument".
>
> >>>>>>> As I already said, the native methods are the fastest, no doubt, but
> >>>>>>> the standalone version is still to be considered alone or combined.
>
> >>>>>>> However, I believe we should test the following minor implications
> >>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>> deemed
>
> ...
>
> mais »
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to jquery-dev@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
