this is how I would do it!
                <script type="text/javascript">
                        jQuery.ajat=function(url){
                                var results = []
                                jQuery.ajax({
                                        async:false,
                                        url:url,
                                        dataType: "text",
                                        complete:function(res) {
                                                var data = res.responseText;
                                                var a = data.split(/\n/)
                                                var headings = a[0].split(/\t/)
                                                for (var i = 1; i < a.length; 
i++){
                                                        var line = 
a[i].split(/\t/)
                                                        var obj = {}
                                                        for (var j = 0; j < 
line.length; j++){
                                                                
obj[headings[j]] = line[j]
                                                        }
                                                        results.push(obj)
                                                }
                                        }
                                })
                                return results
                        }
                        $(function(){
                                var x = $.ajat('data.txt')
                                $.log(x)
                        });
                </script>

http://cigar.dynalias.org/demo/ajat/ajat.html



On 3/8/07, Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it's similar to Json, but no field names that get repeated for each record.
>
> you do an ajax request , get the response and split it with "\n", now
> you have an array of records, then you split each record with "\t" and
> you've got  a 2 dimensional array.. all the data in perhaps half the
> size.
>
> if you really want it as an array of objects you need a header record,
> which gets split with "/t" then loop thru it assigning the array
> elements to an object field.
>
> Does this sound like what you would need for extra light weight
> transport? I could draft a plugin, it's not rocket surgery!
>
>
> On 3/8/07, Daemach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Jake, you are famous for this ;)
> >
> > Sounds great in theory but an example of how to accomplish this and the
> > reasoning behind that claim would be very helpful!
> >
> > I meant lightweight in terms of querying more than page size, by the way.  I
> > should have been more clear.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ wrote:
> > >
> > > if you're pushing the limit for 'light weight', consider simple tab
> > > delimited data! a simple header and you can convert it to Javascript
> > > in a few lines of code! Not as easy as an eval, but the speed will be
> > > worth it!
> > >
> > > On 3/8/07, Daemach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> While discussing json support in Cold Fusion with Rey Bango, I had a
> > >> small
> > >> flash of insight.  It's a pretty easy matter to take a recordset or any
> > >> other structure, serialize it to JSON format and output that string
> > >> inside
> > >> of an eval() directly in the HTML itself.  With jQuery and the ready()
> > >> function when the page loads you could have a client-side dataset ready
> > >> to
> > >> go.  Why make ajax calls when you can query a client-side datasource for
> > >> things like an auto-complete list?
> > >>
> > >> So the questions are:
> > >>
> > >> -- What are the limits the browser can handle in terms of record count
> > >> and
> > >> still retain a lightweight feel?  (depends on RAM, processor speed - I
> > >> know,
> > >> but generally...)
> > >> -- What would the optimal structure look like for searching given a
> > >> function
> > >> like an auto-complete form field?
> > >> -- Is a "for in" loop the best way to query or is there something more
> > >> efficient?
> > >> -- What benefits, if any, would this have for filtering/sorting a table?
> > >>
> > >> Or is this a bad idea to start with?  Obviously ajax still has its place,
> > >> but it seems like this concept might work for some things...
> > >> --
> > >> View this message in context:
> > >> http://www.nabble.com/Querying-javascript-datasources---what-factors-improve-speed-efficiency--tf3373312.html#a9387190
> > >> Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> jQuery mailing list
> > >> discuss@jquery.com
> > >> http://jquery.com/discuss/
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב   ʝǡǩȩ   ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > jQuery mailing list
> > > discuss@jquery.com
> > > http://jquery.com/discuss/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context: 
> > http://www.nabble.com/Querying-javascript-datasources---what-factors-improve-speed-efficiency--tf3373312.html#a9387322
> > Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > jQuery mailing list
> > discuss@jquery.com
> > http://jquery.com/discuss/
> >
>
>
> --
> Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב   ʝǡǩȩ   ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
>


-- 
Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ - יעקב   ʝǡǩȩ   ᎫᎪᏦᎬ
_______________________________________________
jQuery mailing list
discuss@jquery.com
http://jquery.com/discuss/

Reply via email to