[jQuery] Re: remove() deletes events in jQuery 1.2.1. Why?
Hey, http://brandonaaron.net/docs/livequery/ Destroying events connected to a removed element helps prevent memory leaks -- it is really the correct behavior. Well in most cases it probably is. However I actually got my own little framework used by all plugins I wrote, which attaches events to elements, and cleans them up when I destroy them . However, in this particularly case I was just temporarily removing an a from the DOM while replacing it with an input element for editing. I've changed it to use show() / hide() for now as it doesn't really make much of a difference, I was just interested in why I had to do it. I don't use livequery b/c I don't want to deal with the performance hit. My solution is fairly similar in terms of defining hash table of selectors to apply whenever an element is generated, but its tied into my internal event system and knows about its scope so its not trying to bind stuff whenever some dom manipulation method is run. Anyway thanks alot for the explanations!! -- Felix -- Blogger: http://www.thinkingphp.org/ Entrepreneur: http://www.posttask.com/ /-- currently in private beta, ask me for invite / password/ Freelancer: http://www.fg-webdesign.de/ AIM:theundefined87 Skype: TimeFor23 Other IM: felixge.de http://felixge.de/ Mobile (USA): +1 404 3888693 Mobile (GER): +49 162 9391612 Twitter:http://twitter.com/felixge Jeffrey Kretz wrote: If you haven't seen the livequery plugin, I would recommend looking it over -- this would really be the correct solution to this. http://brandonaaron.net/docs/livequery/ Destroying events connected to a removed element helps prevent memory leaks -- it is really the correct behavior. JK *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Felix Geisendörfer *Sent:* Tuesday, November 06, 2007 1:46 PM *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [jQuery] remove() deletes events in jQuery 1.2.1. Why? Hey, I recently upgraded my app from jQuery 1.3.1 to 1.2.1 and the transition was incredibly easy. However, yesterday I noticed that $().remove() now seems to behave differently then it did in 1.3.1. Thats because now it deletes any events attached to the element removed. This happens to be a problem in my app b/c I remove unneeded elements from the DOM instead of hiding them and inject them back in later on. So when they are injected again, they suddenly don't work anymore : ). Now I looked through the manual and it says this is going to be the expected behavior in 1.2.2: http://docs.jquery.com/Manipulation/remove Which confuses me b/c it already seems to be the case in 1.2.1 and I'm also wondering how I could remove DOM elements without deleting their events in future? I'm also curious about why this change is being made, is it some anti-memory leak thingy? Thanks a lot, -- Felix -- Blogger: http://www.thinkingphp.org/ Entrepreneur: http://www.posttask.com/ //-- currently in private beta, ask me for invite / password// Freelancer: http://www.fg-webdesign.de/ *AIM:* theundefined87 *Skype:* TimeFor23 *Other IM:* felixge.de http://felixge.de/ *Mobile** (USA):* +1 404 3888693 *Mobile** (GER):* +49 162 9391612 *Twitter:* http://twitter.com/felixge
[jQuery] remove() deletes events in jQuery 1.2.1. Why?
Hey, I recently upgraded my app from jQuery 1.3.1 to 1.2.1 and the transition was incredibly easy. However, yesterday I noticed that $().remove() now seems to behave differently then it did in 1.3.1. Thats because now it deletes any events attached to the element removed. This happens to be a problem in my app b/c I remove unneeded elements from the DOM instead of hiding them and inject them back in later on. So when they are injected again, they suddenly don't work anymore : ). Now I looked through the manual and it says this is going to be the expected behavior in 1.2.2: http://docs.jquery.com/Manipulation/remove Which confuses me b/c it already seems to be the case in 1.2.1 and I'm also wondering how I could remove DOM elements without deleting their events in future? I'm also curious about why this change is being made, is it some anti-memory leak thingy? Thanks a lot, -- Felix -- Blogger: http://www.thinkingphp.org/ Entrepreneur: http://www.posttask.com/ /-- currently in private beta, ask me for invite / password/ Freelancer: http://www.fg-webdesign.de/ AIM:theundefined87 Skype: TimeFor23 Other IM: felixge.de http://felixge.de/ Mobile (USA): +1 404 3888693 Mobile (GER): +49 162 9391612 Twitter:http://twitter.com/felixge
[jQuery] Re: SITE: http://www.foodnetwork.com/
Hey, We're taking over people...we'll soon be reaching critical mass where businesses will be LOOKING for people who know jQuery! Are you kidding me? This has long happened! I've seen a ton of job / gig advertisements asking for jQuery expertise in the past : ). But yeah, eventually people will be like Moo...jo...proto...what : )? (Dojo might be an exception actually, I can see reasons people would want to use dojo). -- Felix -- Blogger: http://www.thinkingphp.org/ Entrepreneur: http://www.posttask.com/ /-- currently in private beta, ask me for invite / password/ Freelancer: http://www.fg-webdesign.de/ AIM:theundefined87 Skype: TimeFor23 Other IM: felixge.de http://felixge.de/ Mobile (USA): +1 404 3888693 Mobile (GER): +49 162 9391612 Twitter:http://twitter.com/felixge Andy Matthews wrote: Don't know if this has already been posted or not, but it appears that FoodTV giant FoodNetwork.com is using jQuery (1.1.4): http://www.foodnetwork.com/ We're taking over people...we'll soon be reaching critical mass where businesses will be LOOKING for people who know jQuery! hip hip hooray. andy
[jQuery] Faster then innerHTML
Here is an interesting blog post that I came across: http://blog.stevenlevithan.com/archives/faster-than-innerhtml The synopsis basically is that one can gain dramatic speed improvements on setting innerHTML when removing items that are going to be overwritten using DOM methods before inserting stuff via innerHTML. I could see how this would be a need addition to jQuery. -- Felix PS: If you like regex make sure to subscribe to this guys blog, he has some mad skills going on. -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
[jQuery] Re: New plugin - Lazy Load
Very cool! That's a great idea to save traffic and optimize load times on image heavy pages. -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Mika Tuupola wrote: Little something I worked on sunday. http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload Plugin which enables deferred loading (lazy loading) of images. In other words, images which are below the fold (far down the page not visible in browser) are not loaded before user scrolls down. This plugin should be useful with long pages which have lot of photo content. For example photoblogs. Demo pages is available. You might want to use Firebug or liveHTTP headers to better see what is happening. http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload/enabled.html
[jQuery] Re: Instant Messaging Capabilities
Um, that's not really a donation then, is it? --John This probably needs a new / better term. I read a while ago about some independent musician making more money then he/she'd make on iTunes by letting the people decide how much they pay for it. Theoretically you could 'donate' $0.01. The idea is that the buyer shows that he values whatever he is interested in and is willing to make whatever big (commercial) effort to honor it. I'd be interested in what you guys can come up with in terms of a new label / term for it? Donation is pretty misleading I'd think. -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de John Resig wrote: The home of yShout is at http://yurivish.com/yshout/ Yuri only requires a small donation and he will send you the link to a zip file. Um, that's not really a donation then, is it? --John
[jQuery] Re: Looking for a calendar picker that allows for two instances on one page
I saw that, but I want to actually display the calendar itself, not just on popup, but fully displayed. AFAIK kevin's plugin is capable to do this. See: http://kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/datePicker/v2/demo/renderCalendar.html -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Andy Matthews wrote: I saw that, but I want to actually display the calendar itself, not just on popup, but fully displayed. From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alex Ezell Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 4:40 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: Looking for a calendar picker that allows for two instances on one page Andy, I've used datePicker[1] from Kelvin Luck to do multiple date fields on the same page. I am still using v1 (because I am too lazy to update it and test the new v2), but I'm sure v2 would work fine for you. There are some cool things being done with time and date pickers that work nicely if you need time. [1] http://kelvinluck.com/assets/jquery/datePicker /alex On 8/30/07, Andy Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm working on an app which allows users to search against data in our db using a date range (start, end). What I need is a calendar which allows a user to select both dates, then click submit. So I need a calendar which allows for two instances of itself on one page. I'm looking at jCalendar: http://tedserbinski.com/jcalendar/index.htmlwhich looks really great. But does anyone know if there's a better one? Andy Matthews Senior ColdFusion Developer Office: 877.707.5467 x747 Direct: 615.627.9747 Fax: 615.467.6249 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.dealerskins.com
[jQuery] Select all elements except the first and the 3 last ones?
Hey folks,
I need to select all but the first and the 3 last rows of a table. I
found out that the following works:
$('table tr:gt(0):not(:last:last:last)')
Whoever it does not seem particular elegant to me and jQuery is always
(!) elegant, so I'm wondering if one of you could come up with something
cooler : ).
(I know that giving the elements I'm looking for a class name is
probably the desirable solution in the long run but I'm interested in
the problem itself and changing the markup is cheating ^^)
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
[jQuery] Re: Select all elements except the first and the 3 last ones?
Yeah that one-liner is sweet. I guess I was thinking too much about a
selector. The project I need this for does run an older jQuery version
and the deadline is preparing to make this ugly ugly sound that you get
when not only upsetting the client but also ruining his business - so
updating, hoping none of the virtually several hundred JS enhanced pages
won't break is not in reach right now ; ).
Anyway, thanks for the tip I'll keep it in mind : ).
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
John Resig wrote:
Here's a one-liner:
$('table tr').slice(1,-3);
--John
On 8/29/07, Joel Birch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Felix,
As of jQuery 1.1.4 there is a new slice() method which works similar to the
JavaScript native Array.slice() method, except on jQuery objects. Therefore,
I guess you could do something like:
var $rows = $('table tr');
$rows.slice(1,$rows.length-3);
I may not have calculated the slice parameters properly because I wanted to
post this quick enough to beat Karl to the punch :)
Joel Birch.
[jQuery] Re: One callback for two ajax requests
This just cried for an elegant solution, and I'm in
anything-but-client-work-mood again : ). So here it comes:
Usage:
---
var Stack = new Callstack();
$.getJSON(jsonA.js, {}, Stack.add('requestA'));
$.getJSON(jsonB.js, {}, Stack.add('requestB'));
Stack.onComplete = function(stack) {
console.log('All request are completed, see:', stack);
console.log('Response from requestA:', stack.requestA.arguments[0]);
}
---
Code you need to use the above:
---
var Callstack = function() {}
$.extend(Callstack.prototype, {
stack: {_length: 0}
, add: function(name, callback) {
if ($.isFunction(name)) {
callback = name;
}
if (arguments[1] typeof arguments[1] == 'string') {
name == arguments[1];
}
if (name == '_length') {
throw 'Callstack::add - Forbidden stack item name _length!';
}
if (!name) {
name = this.stack._length;
}
var item = {
arguments: []
, callback: callback
, completed: false
};
this.stack[name] = item;
this.stack._length++;
var self = this;
return function() {
self.handle(item, arguments);
}
}
, update: function() {
var completed = true;
$.each(this.stack, function(p) {
if (p != '_length') {
completed = completed this.completed;
}
});
if (completed == true) {
delete this.stack['_length'];
this.onComplete(this.stack);
}
}
, handle: function(item, args) {
var r;
if ($.isFunction(item.callback)) {
r = callback.apply(item.callback, args);
if (r === false) {
return r;
}
}
item.arguments = args;
item.completed = true;
this.update();
return r;
}
, onComplete: function() {
alert('Stack done executing!');
}
, reset: function() {
this.stack = {};
}
});
---
I also threw in some good stuff, for example you do not have to
explicitly name you stack items, it will use auto-incrementing values
automatically if you don't. Also: You can pass a callback to the
Stack.add() function that acts as a gatekeeper for determining if the
stack item has executed successfully. If that function returns falls
then the stack item will not be thought of as completed and the item can
be triggered again using Callstack.handle().
One could also base a little plugin on this that will only trigger a
function if all elements in the current selection have triggered a
certain event:
Sample usage:
---
$(function() {
$('a').stack('click', function(stack) {
console.log('All links in this document where clicked once!
See:', stack);
}, function() {
// Cancel link default event
return false;
});
});
---
Plugin code:
---
$.fn.stack = function(event, onComplete, fn) {
var Stack = new Callstack();
this.each(function() {
var stackFn = Stack.add();
$(this)[event](function() {
var r;
if ($.isFunction(fn)) {
r = fn.apply(this, arguments);
}
stackFn.apply(this, arguments);
return r;
});
});
Stack.onComplete = onComplete;
}
---
Hmm, I guess I should have and eventually will make a blog post about
this. Meanwhile I hope you or somebody else finds it useful : ).
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Michael Geary wrote:
Good ideas, Thiago. The second one - nested AJAX calls
- will definitely work, and it is probably the simplest way to do this:
$.getJSON(url1, {}, function( json1 ) {
$.getJSON(url2, {}, function( json2 ) {
// do something with json1 and json2
});
});
That does serialize the two AJAX/JSON calls instead of firing them
both off at once, though. (The second request is made when the first
one finishes.)
If you want to fire the two AJAX calls together (especially a good
idea if they are coming from different servers), then you'd want
something like your first idea. There is one bug in that
[jQuery] Re: App similar to Google Homepages
A bit dated, but maybe kind of what you are looking for: http://sonspring.com/journal/jquery-portlets -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Andy Matthews wrote: Hey all... I'm in the process of writing an app that will offer information to our clients. The interface is open at this point, but I'm looking at the possibility of a display type similar to Google Homepages. It would be "module" based in that there would be multiple boxes containing various bits of information, and the user would be able to move these boxes around in a grid based system. Can anyone offer some input as to where I should start looking for this sort of thing? I'm sure that there are drag and drop plugins already, but I'm not sure of what all I would need. Andy Matthews Senior ColdFusion Developer Office: 877.707.5467 x747 Direct: 615.627.9747 Fax: 615.467.6249 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.dealerskins.com
[jQuery] Re: $.clone
My function for cloning looks like this: It covers objects, arrays,
functions and jQuery objects / custom objects with an own clone() function:
--
$.extend({
clone: function(obj, deep) {
// Clone a jQuery object / objects with a custom clone function
if (obj obj obj.clone $.isFunction(obj.clone)) {
return obj.clone(deep);
}
// Clone a function
if ($.isFunction(obj)) {
return function() {return obj.apply(this, arguments);};
}
if (obj obj.constructor == Array) {
// Clone an array
var clone = [];
for(var i = 0; i obj.length; i++) {
clone[i] = (deep == true)
? obj[i]
: $.clone(obj[i], deep);
}
return clone;
} else if (obj obj.constructor == Object) {
// Clone an object
var clone = {};
for (var p in obj) {
clone[p] = (deep == true)
? obj[p]
: $.clone(obj[p], deep);
}
}
return clone;
}
--
I'm interested to hear feedback,
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Erik Beeson wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I'm pretty sure what you suggest won't
properly deal with arrays. Objects aren't the same as arrays. Here's
how I do something like that:
function deepCopy(obj) {
if(obj obj.constructor == Object) {
var newObj = new Object();
for(var field in obj) {
newObj[field] = deepCopy(obj[field]);
}
return newObj;
} else if(obj obj.constructor == Array) {
var newArray = new Array();
for(var i = 0; i obj.length; i++) {
newArray[i] = deepCopy(obj[i]);
}
return newArray;
}
return obj;
}
Also, while it's fine to use $ however you want in your own code, for
code that you're making public, I suggest you checkout the plugin
authoring guide about not using $ directly:
http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins/Authoring#Custom_Alias
--Erik
On 8/5/07, *weepy * [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
During assingment, if the object is not primative, Javascript will
return a pointer to the object rather than a copy.
E.g.
a = [1,2]
b = a
b[0]=3
a == [3,2]
This clone function makes it possible to copy an object.
$.clone = function (obj) {
if(typeof(obj) != 'object') return obj;
if(obj == null) return obj;
var newobj = new Object();
for(var i in obj)
newobj[i] = $.clone(obj[i]);
return newobj;
}
a = [1,2]
b = $.clone(a)
b[0]=3
a == [1,2]
I have found this function invaluable when comparing and complex
Javascript objects.
[jQuery] Re: $.clone
BTW: you are missing a final )
Haha, ok it's official - I suck. Or at least am not allowed to paste
code in here that I haven't at least given a quick firebug trial ; ).
1) I tried to replace my version with it and it didn't work. I did add
in the $.clone(xxx,true) to my code. It wasn't obvious why it didn't
work.
Can you paste the code you tried and that shows the function failing?
2) Speed. Cloning can be quite slow due to the recursion. Is it
possible to move the jQuery specific stuff to the end so it's not
always run by default ?
Give me a break ; ). I would of course need to benchmark this, but I
doubt you'd gain any significant speed by that. Optimizing your jQuery
selectors is a *much* better place to worry about speed. That being
said, I think none of the stuff could be moved to the bottom as
$.isFunction could theoretically return true for objects that have the
constructor Object (somebody correct me if I'm wrong).
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
weepy wrote:
BTW: you are missing a final )
2 comments :
1) I tried to replace my version with it and it didn't work. I did add
in the $.clone(xxx,true) to my code. It wasn't obvious why it didn't
work.
2) Speed. Cloning can be quite slow due to the recursion. Is it
possible to move the jQuery specific stuff to the end so it's not
always run by default ?
On Aug 5, 6:46 pm, the_undefined [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sry for spamming the list, but I just spotted another error (that's
what you get when doing quick refactorings for posting stuff in public
without testing them properly ^^). Full code again / last post:
$.extend({
clone: function(obj, deep) {
// Clone a jQuery object / objects with a custom clone function
if (obj obj obj.clone $.isFunction(obj.clone)) {
return obj.clone(deep);
}
// Clone a function
if ($.isFunction(obj)) {
return function() {return obj.apply(this, arguments);};
}
if (obj obj.constructor == Array) {
// Clone an array
var clone = [];
for(var i = 0; i obj.length; i++) {
clone[i] = (deep == true)
? obj[i]
: $.clone(obj[i], deep);
}
return clone;
} else if (obj obj.constructor == Object) {
// Clone an object
var clone = {};
for (var p in obj) {
clone[p] = (deep == true)
? obj[p]
: $.clone(obj[p], deep);
}
return clone;
}
return obj;
}
}
-- Felix
On Aug 5, 7:42 pm, the_undefined [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ups, that last line should read:
return obj;
not 'return clone;'.
On Aug 5, 7:30 pm, Felix Geisendörfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My function for cloning looks like this: It covers objects, arrays,
functions and jQuery objects / custom objects with an own clone() function:
--
$.extend({
clone: function(obj, deep) {
// Clone a jQuery object / objects with a custom clone function
if (obj obj obj.clone $.isFunction(obj.clone)) {
return obj.clone(deep);
}
// Clone a function
if ($.isFunction(obj)) {
return function() {return obj.apply(this, arguments);};
}
if (obj obj.constructor == Array) {
// Clone an array
var clone = [];
for(var i = 0; i obj.length; i++) {
clone[i] = (deep == true)
? obj[i]
: $.clone(obj[i], deep);
}
return clone;
} else if (obj obj.constructor == Object) {
// Clone an object
var clone = {};
for (var p in obj) {
clone[p] = (deep == true)
? obj[p]
: $.clone(obj[p], deep);
}
}
return clone;
}
--
I'm interested to hear feedback,
-- Felix
--
My Blog:http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business:http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Erik Beeson wrote:
Thanks for sharing this. I'm pretty sure what you suggest won't
properly
[jQuery] Re: [ANN] Dimensions 1.0 final is finally here!
You rock! I cannot imagine working without your plugin on complex/fancy UI stuff anymore ; ). -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Brandon Aaron wrote: The 1.0 release of Dimensions is finally here. It has been a long time in the making. Thanks to everyone who helped me test it! You can get the details and see an example using the new position method over at my blog: http://blog.brandonaaron.net/2007/07/22/dimensions-10/ You can download dimensions from the project page: http://jquery.com/plugins/project/dimensions Or via SVN: http://jqueryjs.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/plugins/dimensions/ If you find any bugs or have any feature requests ... be sure to report them at the dimensions project page. Oh... and you can check out the documentation over here: http://brandonaaron.net/docs/dimensions/ Thanks! -- Brandon Aaron
[jQuery] Re: Announce: Confirmer plugin
Cool idea. Just add support for a class that's being added to the button when in 'confirm' mode - otherwise there is no way to visually highlight this new UI approach for the user ; ). -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Stephan Beal wrote: Hi again, all! Confirmer is a plugin for jQuery which implements a novel approach to the process of confirming an action. Normally this is achieved via a yes/no dialog box or a button with a confirm checkbox next to it. The Confirmer plugin instead sets up a single button which changes to a confirm the action state if it is clicked one time. If the button is clicked again within a specified time then the action is confirmed, otherwise it times out and returns to its initial state. http://wanderinghorse.net/computing/javascript/jquery/confirmer/ Includes a live demo link. Happy hacking!
[jQuery] Re: Site Offline?
I have over 1000 emails a day frequently... and then there are RSS feeds. I don't read them all. Wasn't trying to be smart, don't flame someone until they earn it. :) You should forward most of that to people who actually have the time to read that many emails and are chronically depressed because their inbox is always empty. Has worked great for me in the past : ). -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de John Farrar wrote: Rey, I have over 1000 emails a day frequently... and then there are RSS feeds. I don't read them all. Wasn't trying to be smart, don't flame someone until they earn it. :) John Rey Bango wrote: Smartass! ;) Let me see whats up. Rey... John Farrar wrote: Did I miss an announcement that jQuery.com would be down this morning?
[jQuery] Re: Getting user agent stats with jQuery...
Alternately, does anyone know of some reliable piece of software which does this same sort of thing, but maybe cheaper? Google Analytics - it's free. -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Andy Matthews wrote: My company currently uses a product called BrowserHawk, a combination of_javascript_ and Java files, to get a set of user data which we then store in our database. Currently this data set includes Flash player version, OS, Browser (and version),Screen Res, and more. The drawback is that this software is expensive, around $1000 per server (we have 3 right now), and we're not fully using the data it provides to us anyway. I know that jQuery core can provide browser (and version?), and I also know that you can get screen res with the dimensions plugin. I'm wondering if anyone has considered writing a jQuery plugin which mimics this behavior, returning an object containing user agent information. Alternately, does anyone know of some reliable piece of software which does this same sort of thing, but maybe cheaper? Thanks for the input. Andy Matthews Senior ColdFusion Developer Office: 877.707.5467 x747 Direct: 615.627.9747 Fax: 615.467.6249 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.dealerskins.com
[jQuery] Re: Getting user agent stats with jQuery...
We wouldn't use it in "real-time" but we would need to be able to store that data ourselves and not just access it via their interface. You can aggregate and store it yourself. I wrote some code a while back that does that (it's for the CakePHP framework but could be decoupled from it or alternatively rewritten in any other language). http://www.thinkingphp.org/2006/06/19/google-analytics-php-api-cakephp-model/ -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Andy Matthews wrote: We wouldn't use it in "real-time" but we would need to be able to store that data ourselves and not just access it via their interface. Is that still possible? From: jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:jquery-en@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Aaron Porter Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:04 PM To: jquery-en@googlegroups.com Subject: [jQuery] Re: Getting user agent stats with jQuery... If you are only interested in storing the data (not using it real time) you may want to look into google analytics. http://www.google.com/analytics/ It has lots of info including browser type and version, operating system, screen resolution, colors, flash version, java version, and lots more. It has a very slick interface. Best of all it's free! Aaron Andy Matthews wrote: My company currently uses a product called BrowserHawk, a combination of_javascript_ and Java files, to get a set of user data which we then store in our database. Currently this data set includes Flash player version, OS, Browser (and version),Screen Res, and more. The drawback is that this software is expensive, around $1000 per server (we have 3 right now), and we're not fully using the data it provides to us anyway. I know that jQuery core can provide browser (and version?), and I also know that you can get screen res with the dimensions plugin. I'm wondering if anyone has considered writing a jQuery plugin which mimics this behavior, returning an object containing user agent information. Alternately, does anyone know of some reliable piece of software which does this same sort of thing, but maybe cheaper? Thanks for the input. Andy Matthews Senior ColdFusion Developer Office: 877.707.5467 x747 Direct: 615.627.9747 Fax: 615.467.6249 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.dealerskins.com
[jQuery] Re: Announce: jFeed - jQuery RSS/ATOM feed parser plugin
Nifty idea, but this will only work within a single domain, right? No there is a proxy.php file to the package that allows you to load RSS files from other sites. Or just read the files locally on his server if you get bored (hint: check the fopen call : ). -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Michael Geary wrote: Nifty idea, but this will only work within a single domain, right? From: Jean-Francois Hovinne jFeed is a new jQuery plugin which parses RSS/ATOM feeds. It uses jQuery's built-in AJAX functions to get the XML and basic selectors to parse it. More info on my blog: http://www.hovinne.com/blog/index.php/2007/07/15/132-jfeed-jquery-rss-atom-f eed-parser-plugin Download: http://www.hovinne.com/dev/jquery/jfeed/jquery.jfeed.tar.gz Any feedback is welcome.
[jQuery] Re: Announce: jFeed - jQuery RSS/ATOM feed parser plugin
BTW, a basic one is provided in the archive for testing purposes. Oh in that case nevermind my last post. I guess the proxy.php is alright for *local* testing. -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Jean-Francois Hovinne wrote: Yes, though you can use a server-side proxy to load external feeds. BTW, a basic one is provided in the archive for testing purposes. On 15 juil, 23:25, Michael Geary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nifty idea, but this will only work within a single domain, right?
[jQuery] Re: Interested in porting another DOM creation plugin?
No kidding. I was disappointed to read about some of the missing things from javascript's implementation of regular expressions. No named groups and no look behinds. I'm still very new to javascript as a language, so I'm still feeling my way around some things. I'll post some results as soon as I have something worth showing. I really miss look-behind too! Maybe this could be hacked, but that's a rather ambitious goal ; ). -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Josh Bush wrote: No kidding. I was disappointed to read about some of the missing things from javascript's implementation of regular expressions. No named groups and no look behinds. I'm still very new to javascript as a language, so I'm still feeling my way around some things. I'll post some results as soon as I have something worth showing. Josh On 7/13/07, *Jörn Zaefferer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Josh Bush wrote: I think I may dig around the jQuery source to get some hints on parsing elements. I've yet to even take a peek inside! Beware of those regexp monsters! They can eat your brain. But there is nothing like a good brain eater for parsing strings... -- Jörn Zaefferer http://bassistance.de
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
Christof: I appreciate your comments. Even more however I would have
appreciated if you'd have taken into consideration why I made the
proposal. I didn't do so because I personally need this functionality,
but because I think both exists() and hasClass() would make the library
more accessible to newcomers who do not understand the inner workings
100% perfectly. Now if you are saying that those should be educated
rather then spoiled then you've got a valid point there. I just think
that jQuery has gained a lot of it's popularity due to it's
easy-to-learn factor (besides it's superiority and beauty that is : )
and think this could be a good addition to it.
div class=myClass.../div
div class=myOtherClass.../div
$('div').hasClass('myClass');
What should this return now?
It should return true. That's because $('a').attr('href') returns the
'href' attribute of the first anchor matched (afaik).
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Christof Donat wrote:
Hi,
However, as you said this library is more then just code, it's art. And
this is why I'm emphasizing those new functions: They empower the artist
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there
is nothing left to take away.
(Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)
Don't try to add paint to the Mona Lisa ;-)
Christof
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
But I don't think we disagree at all. I wasn't talking about .get() with no
arguments, but rather .get(n) and .size(), which are just slower synonyms
for [n] and .length.
Yeah I agree with you on that. I just read: 'we should get rid of the
get() function' and freaked : p
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Michael Geary wrote:
There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size()
now that the array-like jQuery object allows the
simpler and more efficient [n] and .length.
I disagree. Whenever you need to sort the elements in an
ul or something then you'll have to use the Array.sort()
function, so you need to do $('ul li').get().sort(...). Here
is an example of where I needed this functionality:
http://bin.cakephp.org/view/1632218532
It's not a big deal that I have to call get(), but it would
be a big problem if it wasn't there!
That's a good point about .get() with no arguments - it gives you a genuine
Array object which can be quite useful.
But I don't think we disagree at all. I wasn't talking about .get() with no
arguments, but rather .get(n) and .size(), which are just slower synonyms
for [n] and .length.
-Mike
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
if ($('#someID')) {
// something matched the selector
}
See, and there you go making a wrong assumption that beginners are much
more likely to run into. !![] is evaluating to true and so is a jQuery
object that has not matched any items. I'm not blaming you for it, it's
counter-intuitive (if you don't know objects always evaluate to true)
but that's how JS works. So an exists() function could could probably
help people avoiding this mistake.
(Your other example where using [0] is a workable solution however)
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
RobG wrote:
On Jul 10, 4:50 am, Sean Catchpole [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that learning jquery returns an array like object is more
useful than creating a .exists() function.
It seems to me that the most common reason for testing if an element
exists is to use it later, so why not:
var element;
if ( (element=$('#someID')[0]) ) {
/* element exists */
} else {
/* damn... */
}
Another idea is that if the seletor doesn't select any elements,
return null (as does getElementById() in that case):
if ($('#someID')) {
// something matched the selector
}
but that may not be backward compatible. Of what use is an empty
jQuery object?
--
Rob
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
In fact, if you find yourself doing a lot of if(something exists) {
... } else { ...}, you might want to consider trying to move some of
your code into a plugin.
The target audience for an exists() function would be new comers to
jQuery. Those are generally a little scared about writing their own
'plugin' even so there isn't much to be scared about I think and I'm
just making this assumption here ; ).
Anyway, there are situations where plugins are not enough. For example
if you have to modify other elements in case a certain screen element
exists then a plugin won't really help you a lot unless it's very
app-specifc.
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Erik Beeson wrote:
In fact, if you find yourself doing a lot of if(something exists) {
... } else { ...}, you might want to consider trying to move some of
your code into a plugin. Most jQuery functions/plugins already deal
with the if(exists)... part by simply not executing if nothing is
selected. If you really want the 'else' part, you could imagine a
simple plugin, something like (untested):
$.fn.ifEmpty = function(f) {
if(this.length == 0) f.apply(this);
return this;
}
And use it like this:
$('#foo').show().ifEmpty(function() {
alert(foo doesn't exist);
});
Which would show the element with ID foo, or show an alert if the
element doesn't exist. Equivalent to:
var $foo = $('#foo');
if($foo.length 0) {
$foo.show();
} else {
alert(foo doesn't exist);
}
Just an idea.
--Erik
On 7/9/07, Erik Beeson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another idea is that if the seletor doesn't select any elements,
return null (as does getElementById() in that case):
...
but that may not be backward compatible. Of what use is an empty
jQuery object?
An empty jQuery object doesn't break chainability:
$('#foo').hide();
Will hide the element with ID foo if it exists. Otherwise, it does
nothing. If null were returned, that would generate a javascript
error, so you would have to always check for the existence of the
element if you wanted to be sure you didn't generate an error.
This is one of the sweetest features of jQuery.
--Erik
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
jQuery is a language It was a library last time I checked ; ). and as such requires you to read at least a bit of documentation or examples before starting. Why? For me the sweetest thing about using jQuery has been it's intuitiveness right out of the box. When I started I just looked at some initial code samples (fancy API pages weren't around back then or I didn't know about them) and then was virtually able to 'guess' the jQuery functions I needed. Need to add a class? Hmm let me try addClass() - works, yeah! Now I want to remove an element from the DOM - oh remove() it is! So now I just need to check whether this element exists. Hm - exists() produces a fatal error. Let me search the docs: * http://docs.jquery.com/Special:Search?search=element+existsfulltext=Search http://docs.jquery.com/Special:Search?search=element+existsfulltext=Search * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adocs.jquery.com%20element%20existshl=en http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Adocs.jquery.com%20element%20existshl=en At this point I would need to actually post to the group or read the complete API docs in detail to find that is() is the answer to the problem. Same goes for hasClass() I think. Maybe .is() and .length should be more prominently visible in the doc, but I see no point in adding the .exists() and .hasClass() cruft to the (beautiful) jQuery code. I think is() is beautiful as well and there is nothing wrong with .length. However both pose a certain barrier for something new-comers will possibly try to do quite often. -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Fil wrote: jQuery is a language and as such requires you to read at least a bit of documentation or examples before starting. Maybe .is() and .length should be more prominently visible in the doc, but I see no point in adding the .exists() and .hasClass() cruft to the (beautiful) jQuery code. -- Fil
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
What about
Array.prototype.sort.apply( $('li') );
Not sue if that'll work...
I think that could work, but it's breaking chainability so I think the
array plugin mentioned by Jörn earlier is a better alternative. However
since I all I need is sort(), I actually am fine with using get() that
one time.
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Klaus Hartl wrote:
Felix Geisendörfer wrote:
Felix, not to worry, there's nothing wrong at all with using .length
- and it is obviously faster than a function call.
I figured that by now. I think Matt was much better at explaining why
I think an alternative exists() function is useful - it simply is the
most intuitive thing a new jQuery user looks for. I also agree with
his hasClass argument. I love the is() function, but I would have
taken me a long time to find it if I my question was phrased Who can
I determine if an element has a certain class.is() is more powerful
but not nearly as intuitive as hasClass would be for new users.
In the earliest versions of jQuery, the jQuery object was not an
array, but had a private array object that you accessed using
.get(n) and .size(). The only reason those functions still exist is
for compatibility with old code.
There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size() now that
the array-like jQuery object allows the simpler and more efficient
[n] and .length.
I disagree. Whenever you need to sort the elements in an ul or
something then you'll have to use the Array.sort() function, so you
need to do $('ul li').get().sort(...). Here is an example of where I
needed this functionality: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/1632218532
It's not a big deal that I have to call get(), but it would be a big
problem if it wasn't there!
What about
Array.prototype.sort.apply( $('li') );
Not sue if that'll work...
--Klaus
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
ok, so next time i want to code something in jquery i'll just write
$(make coffee) ?
Haha, now I'm questioning your ambition. This is the holy grail of all
programming, it's almost blasphemy to make fun of it ; ).
For me (and I really mean not speaking for everyone) it's more
intuitive if there is an internal logic that I can understand;
Ok, I guess in this case the only language we share is jQuery ; ).
Intuition irrational by definition, see:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:intuition.
No, there are things that are intuitive **once you've understood the
basics**. IOW intuitiveness is based on your assumptions and your
knowledge. Why would you assume that .hasClass() exists? And not,
e.g., isMemberOf() or .classMatches() ? It must depend of what you're
already familiar with before you switch to jQuery.
I agree with you that people will try to use stuff they know from other
libraries first before falling back to intuition. So what would be two
of the most popular ones to expect?
Mootools:
* includes a hasClass() function:
http://docs.mootools.net/Native/Element.js#Element.hasClass
* includes a remove() function:
http://docs.mootools.net/Native/Element.js#Element.remove
Prototype:
* includes a hasClassName() function:
http://www.prototypejs.org/api/element#method-hasclassname
* includes a remove() function:
http://www.prototypejs.org/api/element/remove
To be fair. Neither Mootools nor Prototype seem to include an exists()
function. This however could also be traced back by the fact that they
do not share the jQuery philosophy in terms of advocating their CSS
selector engine as a) their main element retrieval method and b) don't
use it as a wrapper for chainability.
Anyway I can see your argument about how an exists() function would be
redundant. jQuery has a lot of convenience wrappers for things, but
$.fn.exists = function(){return !!this.length}; would be the smallest
and least functional one. Same is almost true for hasClass (return
this.is('.'+class));. This is where you can convince me with a
rational/scientific argument that those functions aren't needed.
However, as you said this library is more then just code, it's art. And
this is why I'm emphasizing those new functions: They empower the artist
(who does not read the complete docs before getting started) and don't
hurt the scientists
What a rant ... haha
Anyway, interesting discussion and good arguments,
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Fil wrote:
jQuery is a language
It was a library last time I checked ; ).
yeah, well, it can be many things to many people; we all agree it's
code. I think it's art, too
Why? For me the sweetest thing about using jQuery has been it's
intuitiveness right out of the box.
ok, so next time i want to code something in jquery i'll just write
$(make coffee) ?
No, there are things that are intuitive **once you've understood the
basics**. IOW intuitiveness is based on your assumptions and your
knowledge. Why would you assume that .hasClass() exists? And not,
e.g., isMemberOf() or .classMatches() ? It must depend of what you're
already familiar with before you switch to jQuery.
For me (and I really mean not speaking for everyone) it's more
intuitive if there is an internal logic that I can understand; adding
stuff that is redundant is merely adding cruft, and hence
counter-intuitive.
That's why I wanted to add my I don't agree message -- though I
understand and respect your position, I don't share it.
-- Fil
[jQuery] Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
I've just been wondering if jQuery has some syntactic sugar for checking
if an element exists. I know the following works:
if ($('#my-element').length) {
// #my-element exists
}
but is there also something similar to the following?:
if ($('#my-element').exists()) {
// #my-element exists
}
I'm asking because I know this was one of the things I was initially
unsure about when learning jQuery and I just had a one of my many jQuery
converted friends ask me about it again. So is anybody else thinking
some syntactic sugar could be helpful here? Or what do you think about:
$('#my-element').is('*') ?
(Besides that it's probably inefficient *g*)
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
Sean, Mike: I agree with your notion that learning that the jQuery object is array-like (It'd be cool if it was a real array and .push / .sort would work on it) is very worthwhile. I knew that when I initially stumbled across the problem and knew that doing it via '.length' was one solution. I was only confused if it was the right way or could lead to undesired results as I was new to jQuery at this point and I didn't find it mentioned anywhere in specific. That's where my notion of an 'exists()' function could be useful comes from. But it's probably just something that should be put in the manual somewhere (if it isn't already in there and I missed it). -- Felix -- My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Sean Catchpole wrote: I believe that learning jquery returns an array like object is more useful than creating a .exists() function. ~Sean
[jQuery] Re: Syntactic sugar for checking whether an element exists
Felix, not to worry, there's nothing wrong at all with using .length
- and it is obviously faster than a function call.
I figured that by now. I think Matt was much better at explaining why I
think an alternative exists() function is useful - it simply is the most
intuitive thing a new jQuery user looks for. I also agree with his
hasClass argument. I love the is() function, but I would have taken me a
long time to find it if I my question was phrased Who can I determine
if an element has a certain class.is() is more powerful but not nearly
as intuitive as hasClass would be for new users.
In the earliest versions of jQuery, the jQuery object was not an
array, but had a private array object that you accessed using .get(n)
and .size(). The only reason those functions still exist is for
compatibility with old code.
There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size() now that
the array-like jQuery object allows the simpler and more efficient [n]
and .length.
I disagree. Whenever you need to sort the elements in an ul or
something then you'll have to use the Array.sort() function, so you need
to do $('ul li').get().sort(...). Here is an example of where I needed
this functionality: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/1632218532
It's not a big deal that I have to call get(), but it would be a big
problem if it wasn't there!
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Michael Geary wrote:
Felix, not to worry, there's nothing wrong at all with using .length
- and it is obviously faster than a function call.
In the earliest versions of jQuery, the jQuery object was not an
array, but had a private array object that you accessed using .get(n)
and .size(). The only reason those functions still exist is for
compatibility with old code.
There's no reason at all to stick with .get(n) and .size() now that
the array-like jQuery object allows the simpler and more efficient [n]
and .length.
-Mike
*From:* Felix Geisendörfer
Sean, Mike: I agree with your notion that learning that the jQuery
object is array-like (It'd be cool if it was a real array and
.push / .sort would work on it) is very worthwhile. I knew that
when I initially stumbled across the problem and knew that doing
it via '.length' was one solution. I was only confused if it was
the right way or could lead to undesired results as I was new to
jQuery at this point and I didn't find it mentioned anywhere in
specific. That's where my notion of an 'exists()' function could
be useful comes from. But it's probably just something that should
be put in the manual somewhere (if it isn't already in there and I
missed it).
-- Felix
--
My Blog: http://www.thinkingphp.org
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Sean Catchpole wrote:
I believe that learning jquery returns an array like object is more
useful than creating a .exists() function.
~Sean
[jQuery] Re: Naming Conventions
I like it simple: [x] .mask [ ] .maskInput -- Felix -- My latest blog posts: My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de Josh Bush wrote: As my masked input plugin approaches 1.0, I'm noticing that my plugin isn't following the conventions of the jQuery library itself. Currently my plugins main method is .maskedinput(mask,options) I'm thinking I should change it to .maskInput(mask,options) or simpley .mask(mask,options) I think this change is good because it's a verb and it shows action. Also, there is a global method which allows user defined char placeholders which Jrn advided me to namespace off. So, I plan to put it in $.MaskedInput.addPlaceholder(character,regex). What do you all think of the proposed name changes? I think it's important to remain consistent with the base library. I want to make sure that I get everything settled once I reach 1.0. Thanks Josh digitalbush.com
[jQuery] Re: Naming Conventions
I would prefer .maskInput as the method name,
coz, it conveys both the
intention and what it applies to. "mask" doesnt convey where it applies
to and probably can be used for a more generic plugin.
$('input.date').mask(...) should be good enough to imply what is meant
I think. I used to be in favor of longer function names myself a while
back, but recently found that shorter is better in most cases. A good
example is jQuery itself: we have css() instead of setStyle(), load()
instead of ajaxLoad() etc. The thing is as longer your name get's the
less intuitive it is. When I started using jQuery I would discover
functions by virtually guessing their names and only use the API if
that resulted in an error. So I'm going to vote for mask() again ; ).
-- Felix
--
My latest blog posts:
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Ganeshji Marwaha wrote:
I would prefer .maskInput as the method name, coz, it conveys
both the intention and what it applies to. "mask" doesnt convey where
it applies to and probably can be used for a more generic plugin.
Regarding, the namespace for additional methods. I agree that
MaskedInput is the one that actually makes sense. But for the sake of
simplicity and consistency, i would name it MaskInput instead.
-GTG
On 6/28/07, Josh Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As my masked input plugin approaches 1.0, I'm noticing that my plugin
isn't following the conventions of the jQuery library itself.
Currently my plugins main method is .maskedinput(mask,options)
I'm thinking I should change it to .maskInput(mask,options) or
simpley .mask(mask,options)
I think this change is good because it's a verb and it shows action.
Also, there is a global method which allows user defined char
placeholders which Jrn advided me to namespace off.
So, I plan to put it in $.MaskedInput.addPlaceholder(character,regex).
What do you all think of the proposed name changes?I think it's
important to remain consistent with the base library.I want to make
sure that I get everything settled once I reach 1.0.
Thanks
Josh
digitalbush.com
[jQuery] Re: Overlay plugin?
I want to maintain proportion, but scale it to
fit in the view port.0
Got some PHP code laying around that does just that. Should be easy to
convert to JS:
function fitObjectInBox($objectWidth, $objectHeight, $boxWidth,
$boxHeight)
{
// Fit's our image in a box with a given width and heigth while
proportions remain,
// *or* resizes it based on one site proportionally if only width
or height is given
$widthRatio = @($boxWidth / $objectWidth);
$heightRatio = @($boxHeight / $objectHeight);
if (($widthRatio $heightRatio) ($widthRatio!=0) ||
($heightRatio==0))
{
$ratio = $widthRatio;
}
else
{
$ratio = $heightRatio;
}
$new_width = ceil($objectWidth * $ratio);
$new_height = ceil($objectHeight * $ratio);
return array($new_width, $new_height);
}
HTH, Felix
--
My latest blog posts:
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Glen Lipka wrote:
Sorry, working on it right now. :)
I fixed that. Trying to figure out how to position it in the middle of
the screen and adjust the height width so it makes sense.
The logic is a little tortuous on my mind.
I want to maintain proportion, but scale it to fit in the view port.
Is there a resize plugin?
Glen
On 6/23/07, Aaron Heimlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I
got this error on FF
2.0.0.4 (Mac OS 10.4.10):
e.css is not a function
http://www.commadot.com/jquery/easebox/easeBox.js
Line 59
Stack trace:
showZoom(a
matt-big.jpg)easeBox.js
(line 59)
(no name)()easeBox.js
(line 27)
(no name)(
click clientX=0, clientY=0)jquery-latest.js
(line 1398)
handle
(click clientX=0, clientY=0)jquery-latest.js
(line 1302)
e.css("z-index","1001");
On 6/24/07, Glen Lipka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
dimScreen
is great.
Check it out:
http://www.commadot.com/jquery/easebox/
Although, I changed it slighly to use $(window).width() instead of
$(document).width()
This might only work with the dimensiosn plugin included.
Glen
On 6/23/07, Glen Lipka
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It
should be Rey Bingo!
That's exactly it. Awesome. Thanks. :)
Glen
On 6/23/07, Rey Bango
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
dimScreen:
http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins/dimScreen
Glen Lipka wrote:
I can't find it, but I vaguely remember someone had a plugin that
just
puts a 50% opacity overlay over the page.
Sort of like a thickbox thing, but without all the other stuff.
Does anyone know where it is?
Glen
--
BrightLight Development, LLC.
954-775- (o)
954-600-2726 (c)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iambright.com
--
Aaron Heimlich
Web Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://aheimlich.freepgs.com
[jQuery] Re: Image resizing
Untested, off the cuff:
centerPosition: function(objWidth, objHeight, boxWidth, boxHeight) {
return {
top: (boxWidth / 2) - (objWidth / 2)
, left: (boxHeight / 2) - (objHeight / 2)
}
}
var $myDiv = $('#my-div');
var $screen = $(document);
mvDiv.css(centerPosition(myDiv.width(), myDiv.height(),
$screen.width(), $screen.height()));
See if that helps,
-- Felix
--
My latest blog posts:
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Glen Lipka wrote:
Felix Geisend hooked me up with some code, which seemed to work perfectly.
function
fitObjectInViewPort(zoomedImage)
{
// Fit's our image in a box with a given width and heigth while
proportions remain,
// *or* resizes it based on one site proportionally if only width
or height is given
var objectWidth = zoomedImage.width();
var objectHeight = zoomedImage.height();
var boxWidth = ($(window).width()) * maxImagePercent;
var boxHeight = ($(window).height()) * maxImagePercent;
widthRatio = (boxWidth / objectWidth);
heightRatio = (boxHeight / objectHeight);
if ((widthRatio heightRatio) (widthRatio!=0) ||
(heightRatio==0))
{
ratio = widthRatio;
}
else
{
ratio = heightRatio;
}
new_width = Math.ceil(objectWidth * ratio);
new_height = Math.ceil(objectHeight * ratio);
//return array(new_width, new_height);
new_left = (boxWidth - new_width) / 2;
new_top = (boxHeight - new_height) / 2;
bigThumb.animate({width:new_width,height:new_height}, {duration: 750,
easing: "backinout"});
}
My math to figure out how to center it in the viewport is a little
sketchy, but I feel like it's making progress.
Thanks Felix!
Glen
On 6/23/07, Glen Lipka
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm sorry I am asking so many questions about this.
Still working on this EaseBox thing.
http://www.commadot.com/jquery/easebox/
My question has to do with finding the proper image size based on the
viewport.
Logic:
maximum height and width of the zoomed image is a percentage of the
viewport.
var maxPercentage = 90%;
this means that height nor width can be more than 90% of the viewport.
if they are both less, then it should maximize to full size.
if width is more and height it less
it should reduce width to maxPercentage and keep height proportional
and vice versa for height more, but width less.
if height and width are higher, then it should pick the one that is
higher and reduce that to maxPercentage of either height orwidth of
viewport depending on which one is more.
Once the image size is calculated, it should center it in the viewport
horizontally and vertically. I guess that is
left: viewport width - image width /2
top: viewport height- image height/2
Is that right?
Man, this is making me dizzy.
Then I have to put these variables into an animate function.
What is the syntax to do that?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Glen
[jQuery] Re: Masked Input Plugin RC1a
Thanks for that plugin : ).
Call / apply are ones best friends when working with JS. Incredibly
powerful stuff when used right. One of my favorite uses apply is to use
it on a new array instance to force 'arguments' variable to behave like
a real array and re-route function arguments based on the first value
passed into the array:
Sample:
---
$.fn.task = function(fct) {
var r = $.fn.task.fn[fct].apply(this[0], [].slice.call(arguments,
1));
return r === undefined ? this : r;
};
$('tr[td]').task('field', 'value'); - calls $.fn.task.fn.field(value)
---
Anyway, keep up the good work and thanks for the improvement,
-- Felix
--
My latest blog posts:
My Business: http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Josh Bush wrote:
Hey guys and gals. I learned about the .call() functionality today
and decided to modify the behavior of the optional mask completed
function. Now you don't need to specify an parameter when you define
your function; you can simply use "this".
Before:
$("#product").maskedinput("99/99/",{completed:function(input)
{alert("You typed the following: "+input.val());}});
Now:
$("#product").maskedinput("99/99/",{completed:function()
{alert("You typed the following: "+this.val());}});
It's not a necessary change, I just wasn't happy with forcing the user
to add a param to their functions. It seemed a bit kludgey to me.
The new version is up at: http://digitalbush.com/projects/masked-input-plugin
and also at the official jQuery plugin repository:
http://jquery.com/plugins/project/maskedinput
Thank You
Josh
[jQuery] Re: Macrumors running live udpates of WWDC
On an (un)related note: Is anybody having rendering quirks with the Safari 3 beta on Win XP? I just noticed that a couple sites of mine that I thought would render well in Safari are messed up. Even Google Ads seems to be affected. Anybody with similar problems? -- Felix PS: Click on the link below for thinkingphp.org to see what I mean. -- http://www.thinkingphp.org http://www.fg-webdesign.de Klaus Hartl wrote: Mike Alsup wrote: I'm *really* excited to be able to run Safari on Windows, but has anyone used this beta? I've never seen anything render so slowly. It's entirely unusable on my XP box. It is also totally annoying that you can't run Safari 3 beta and 2 side by side on a Mac... grrr, Apple is making the same mistakes as Microsoft. Am I missing something? -- Klaus
[jQuery] Re: SlickSpeed CSS Selector TestSuite
Well here is my personal (and widely uneducated) opinion on this speed test. First what I think is good about it: * each framework get's it's own iframe - avoid conflicts between them * the test itself is written without using a framework What I think is bad about it: * There are 3 nth-child(x*n)-style tests that jQuery seems to choke on as those selectors are not implemented in 1.1.2 (correct me if I'm wrong). On my machine this equates in 617ms (20 %) of jQuery's total test time (2857ms) * The div ~ div selector seems to take jQuery really long to perform, 1125ms (43%) go into it * The div:only-child + div:contains selector seem to be slow in jQuery and 203ms total (12%) go into them What does this mean? It means that jQuery is nowhere as slow as the final test results make it appear (26x slower then mootools). It means that mootools got the performance lead in some specific selector (and does good in general) which is given way too much weight by the test itself. I'm also questioning how far one can even go in terms of benchmarking selector engines. I mean everybody has different needs. Most of the time I use very simple selectors which jQuery does very fast according to the test. So I'd actually be willing to loose performance on the more complicated selectors if that allows the more common ones to run faster. What's missing in my eyes is a survey or analysis of common selector usage that could be used to weigh in the different selector results. That being said I'm not trying to say jQuery is actually the fastest library and the evil test just made it look bad. I'm sure there is room for improvements and who knows what 1.1.3 will bring. But what I'm trying to communicate is that it's not an easy job to actually interpret the results coming from those speed tests and hence one should be very careful when using them to make a point for one lib being faster then another. -- Felix Geisendörfer aka the_undefined -- http://www.thinkingphp.org http://www.fg-webdesign.de Robert O'Rourke wrote: Michael Stuhr wrote: my results: FF 2.0.0.4 WinXP-SP2 http://onenterframe.de/temp/ micha Is Jquery slower because it's more compact then? ie. better for light usage? I much prefer the syntax and the community around jquery. I never got any helpful responses from anyone on the mootools forum when I was using that library. Rob
[jQuery] Re: Macrumors running live udpates of WWDC
I have SERIOUS, SERIOUS doubts that there are 18 million people using Safari. I doubt there are that many people using Macs to be perfectly honest. I also think that FF numbers are underestimated and IE numbers overesimtated: See http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp -- Felix -- http://www.thinkingphp.org http://www.fg-webdesign.de Andy Matthews wrote: I have SERIOUS, SERIOUS doubts that there are 18 million people using Safari. I doubt there are that many people using Macs to be perfectly honest. *From:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of * *Sent:* Monday, June 11, 2007 1:11 PM *To:* jquery-en@googlegroups.com *Subject:* [jQuery] Re: Macrumors running live udpates of WWDC 11:09 amSafari On WINDOWS 11:09 am18 Million Safari users Marketshare has climbed to 4.9% IE has 78%, Firefox 15%, others 2% We Dream Big On 6/11/07, *Shelane Enos* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a feature they've previously announced that I'm looking forward to. On 6/11/07 10:52 AM, ?ⓐⓚⓔ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 10:49 amusing safari to make widgets from web pages Woo hoo! On 6/11/07, *?ⓐⓚⓔ* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks Shelane! I've been tuned in since 10 am!!! On 6/11/07, *Shelane Enos* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Macrumors.com http://Macrumors.com http://Macrumors.com is running a continuous AJAX update of the keynote address of WWDC. No more update in 60 seconds countdown. -- Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב ʝǡǩȩ ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
[jQuery] Re: Best way to determine if a user has Javascript enabled?
Detecting if JavaScript is enabled is actually fairly straightforward.
No need to make it so complicated.
Well I think this thread is about how to detect if JS is enabled on the
Server-side ; ). Your method of course is the way to go if all one needs
is to display a msg to the user.
-- Felix
--
http://www.thinkingphp.org
http://www.fg-webdesign.de
Giant Jam Sandwich wrote:
Detecting if JavaScript is enabled is actually fairly straightforward.
No need to make it so complicated.
$(function(){
$(#is_disabled).css(display,none);
});
...
div id=is_disabledYou have JavaScript disabled./div
[jQuery] Re: Best way to determine if a user has Javascript enabled?
Didn't read the entire thread but appending parameters like this to an url just doesn't seem right to me. Maybe your problem can be solved by looking if the client sent a X-Requested-With == 'XMLHttpRequest' header. That's how we in CakePHP find out if a page was requested via Ajax or not ; ). Note: This is nothing the XMLHttpRequest adds itself, but I know jQuery and also Prototype do it for all their ajax requests for you. -- Felix -- http://www.thinkingphp.org http://www.fg-webdesign.de
