Ok thanks. I'm going to try it. Didn't know about the $... variables
convention.
d
On 7 Lug, 19:35, "Michael Geary" <m...@mg.to> wrote:
> What you wrote would work, and it would be faster than the original code,
> but you're making an unnecessary $() call each time you use $(list).
> Instead, do it like this:
>
> var $list = $("ul.list");
>
> $list.find("li.selected").addClass("blah");
>
> The $ in $list doesn't have any special meaning; it's just a naming
> convention to help remember that $list is already a jQuery object and
> doesn't need $() when used.
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
> > From: Darko Romanov
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 8:56 AM
> > To: jQuery (English)
> > Subject: [jQuery] Caching nodes
>
> > Hi there,
>
> > I'm developing a site that has some js visual effects and
> > many graphic elements to move. So I have to take care of each
> > single query on the DOM as it could take too much time to be
> > executed, resulting in a flicking animation.
>
> > I thought I could cache in memory a node and then querying
> > it, but I can't understand if it made much sense. Something like:
>
> > var list = $("ul.list");
>
> > and then executing any query in ul.list in this way:
>
> > $(list).find("li.selected").addClass("blah");
>
> > instead of:
>
> > $("ul.list li.selected").addClass("blah");
>
> > would it be faster?
>
> > tnx
