I'd give them an extra link to download the same ajax'ed file. if it
bypassed the user's cache it would be a browser problem.... at least I
don't have to regenerate it!
I usually just code the <a href="file.xls"> in the html and have
jquery do the dirty work of displaying it inline.
On 3/8/07, Daemach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I like the idea of repurposing content, but if you ajax the data then the
> data isn't in the cache as a filename the browser would recognize - how
> would you right click to save it as an excel file without re-downloading?
>
> neat trick either way.
>
>
>
> Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ wrote:
> >
> > it's a technique I used to show the same file several ways... one is
> > directly into excel, the other was as a html table and now as
> > javascript data.
> >
> > Fun stuff... I like re-using content, imagine if the data was large,
> > and already in the cache, a quick right click to save the file already
> > has the data in the cache!
> >
> > the code was slapped together, it was just the technique that I felt
> > is often overlooked for the lightest weight solution for large data
> > sets.
> >
> > I know you can use the technique (and not the little plugin) to
> > lighten the load!
> >
> > On 3/8/07, Daemach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I understand now and thanks for the script. That would reduce the size
> >> of
> >> the download somewhat.
> >>
> >> As a reference, the json ser/deser component we use in cold fusion
> >> defines a
> >> recordset object as a set of arrays. This is to keep with the wddx
> >> standard, though it differs slightly by sticking all of the columns under
> >> a
> >> data node rather than in the root.
> >>
> >> query.columnlist // [col1,col2]
> >> query.recordcount // 2
> >> query.data // contains arrays of columns
> >> query.data.col1 = [col1row1,col1row2]
> >> query.data.col2 = [col2row1,col2row2]
> >>
> >> so if my columns were name and email, to get the 5th email record it
> >> would
> >> be query.data.email[4]. to loop over a column (to search it perhaps)
> >> would
> >> be:
> >>
> >> for (i in query.data.col1){
> >> if (i.indexOf("whatever") != -1) do something;
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ⓙⓐⓚⓔ 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
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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#a9388247
> >> 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#a9388516
> 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/
