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" wh
This question should be asked at http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en
I suppose.
I assume you're doing something like:
function(){
//do something
if ( test() ) // do something else
}
Just split it in two, and get the second part to be the ajax callback:
function doSomething(){
//b
I had written a quick plugin two weeks ago in response to this ticket.
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/2707
It is a little bit different, they wanted to be able to fire events across
an iframe (the innerframe had jQuery too). The plugin is attached, and I
think a variation of this couple help solve th
> perhaps it should only search within an iframe if iframe is explicitly
> set in the selector
>
> e.g
>
> $("iframe .foo") selects .foo in iframe
>
> $(".foo") doesn't select .foo in iframe
That was my assumption, as well - we kind of have to draw the line
somewhere. Making it happen for any se
> I'd like you to check these 3 tickets. They seem doable and useful.
>
> - http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3259
>
> Should we normalized this ?
Definitely. I know that this has come up a couple times now (IE
reporting the incorrect value for buttons).
> - http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3219
>
> Seem
perhaps it should only search within an iframe if iframe is explicitly
set in the selector
e.g
$("iframe .foo") selects .foo in iframe
$(".foo") doesn't select .foo in iframe
On 22 Oct, 17:27, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like it too.
>
> A few points to consider though:
>
>
I like it too.
A few points to consider though:
- Could yield unexpected results. You could be matching elements that
you didn't take into account (they're in an iframe that you didn't
create or something like that).
- Maybe browsers will complain when you mix nodes of different windows/
documen
Hi,
I'd like you to check these 3 tickets. They seem doable and useful.
- http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3259
Should we normalized this ?
- http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3219
Seems useful and shouldn't require much code.
- Ditto.
http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/1681
Cheers
--
Ariel Flesler
http
see http://dev.jquery.com/ticket/3510
greetings
On 22 Okt., 15:12, "Jörn Zaefferer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Thanks, but the mail client somewhat crippeled the code. Could you
> file a ticket?http://dev.jquery.com/newticket(requires registration)
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jörn
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008
Thanks, but the mail client somewhat crippeled the code. Could you
file a ticket? http://dev.jquery.com/newticket (requires registration)
Thanks!
Jörn
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:01 PM, markus.staab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> updated patch:
>
> Index: testrunner.js
> ==
updated patch:
Index: testrunner.js
===
--- testrunner.js (revision 5903)
+++ testrunner.js (working copy)
@@ -399,7 +399,7 @@
var args = Array.prototype.slice.apply(arguments);
var eq = true; // equivalent unti
Hi Jörn,
here it is:
Index: testrunner.js
===
--- testrunner.js (revision 5903)
+++ testrunner.js (working copy)
@@ -428,8 +428,8 @@
if (len !== b.length) { // safe and faster
return false;
I'm happy to commit whatever you guys deem useful for equiv and QUnit.
A patch is perfect, that way I know that it isn't just code you were
trying out.
Thanks
Jörn
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Philippe Rathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Markus.
> That was a nice optimization. All tes
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here since, by definition,
you won't be able to return a value from an asynchronous interaction.
The closest you could get would be to do:
function test(){
var ret;
$.ajax({
type: "POST",
url:"/ajax/test/",
data: { ...]
Thanks Markus.
That was a nice optimization. All tests passed.
It will surely be patch in QUnit soon.
By the way you can download the testsuites and the sources :
http://philrathe.com/projects/equiv
Download the archive. It is always to latest.
Philippe Rathé
On 22-Oct-08, at 5:42 AM, markus.
I like this as well - the result seems quite intuitive.
--John
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:10 AM, Jörn Zaefferer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds like a great idea to me. So far you always have to fall back to
> the DOM API when working with iframes, which means that someone not
> familiar wi
Hi everyone,
here is my problem:
I would like to get a return value of test() given by the callback
function.
The problem I have is because the scope of the callback doesn't
interact with the test function so I'm not able to interact between
them.
here is my function:
Code:
function test(){
Sounds like a great idea to me. So far you always have to fall back to
the DOM API when working with iframes, which means that someone not
familiar with the DOM API falls flat on their face when dealing with
iframes for the first time.
Jörn
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Paul Bakaus
<[EMAIL PR
Hey guys,
I propose to add navigating through iframes for the immediate next version
of jQuery.
That would basically allow you to do stuff like $("iframe div") and fail
gracefully on iframes you're not allowed to access.
Although I never worked on the selector engine, implementation seems quite
e
the first loop has a problem:
it should read
// Everything in a should be in b and equivalent and ...
for (var i in a) {
if(a.hasOwnProperty(i))
{
if (!b.hasOwnProperty(i) || !equiv(a[i], b[i]))
i came up with another idea:
// Everything in a should be in b and equivalent and ...
for (var i in a) {
if (!(a.hasOwnProperty(i) && b.hasOwnProperty(i) &&
equiv(a[i], b[i]))) {
return false;
}
hi Philippe,
in your new code you are doing the following:
50 // Stack all property names for a last minute check for
two good reasons:
51 // 1) To prevent failing when comparing
52 // a property that have an undefined value
53
What you can do with an event for one single element, you can do assigne the
event once, getting the target, and working as it is the single element.
Result, 1 function, a bit slower, but one event as well, instead of
"thousands"
Ariel suggestion is anyway the quickest one to fix the problem
On T
Ariel I agree, i did not say we do not have to care at all, but common
tricks a part, we cannot guarantee zero leaks if the problem is in engine
core, that's it :-)
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Some memory leaks are so noticeable that js devs are
24 matches
Mail list logo
