Oh, fine, have it your way :)
I liked how clever I was being, but if we want to have performance over
support of crazy misuse of HTML, so be it :)
On 2009/05/20 16:52:55, Evan Gilbert (code review) wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/65052/diff/1/2
File
java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/templates/DefaultTemplateProcessor.java
(right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/65052/diff/1/2#newcode446
Line 446: buffer.append("}).apply(e);");
On 2009/05/20 13:40:32, levik wrote:
> On 2009/05/15 17:47:00, Evan Gilbert (code review) wrote:
> > Might be easier to add an ID to the original inserted node (or use
existing
> ID).
> >
> > Pseudo-code
> > String id = el.getAttribute("id")
> > if (id == null) {
> > id = generateUniqueId();
> > el.setAttribute(id);
> > }
> > ....
> > buffer.append("}.apply(document.getElementById('" + jsEscape(id) +
"')");
> >
> >
>
> This would indeed be simpler, but would misfire for the edge case
where
existing
> IDs are non-unique (which is frowned upon, but possible in HTML).
I'm a little worried about the complexity and performance of creating
and
removing elements while processing scripts on the page. These can be
in repeated
loops, so there can be a *lot* of these calls. Also, this construction
might be
harder to sanitize.
I'm also fine if this fails in cases where users have manually
assigned
duplicate HTML element IDs. If you're using JavaScript this seems like
a
reasonable standard to enforce.
http://codereview.appspot.com/65052
