It's not bytes amount vs perfomance, but usability vs perfomance.
Using Diego Perini's approach would add support for iframes and xml documents.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Diogo Baeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Got your point, Ariel... well, for me both solutions (faster with more code
> or slower with less code) are feasible and have bad+good points. It's up to
> you, guys, to pick up one... personally, I don't favor one or another...
> what is more important for you? Less bandwith usage or better performance?
> Since the main ideology for jQuery is "do more writing less code", it
> wouldn't impact its clients...
>
> I just tested this last implementation on IE7, IE6, FF3, Opera 9.62 and
> Safari 3.1.2, and it worked on them all. :-)
>
> Diogo
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I'd just save it as a local var
>>
>> var html = document.documentElement;
>> $.fn.inDOM = html.contains ?
>> function() {
>> var el = this[0];
>> return html != el && $.html.contains(el);
>> } :
>> function() {
>> var el = this[0];
>> return !!(html.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
>> };
>>
>> Does this work reliably on any browser ?
>> Note that his doesn't work for any document that is not THE document.
>>
>> I think a simple traversal (going up) would do. I'm sorry to spoil all
>> the researching but no one said this function will be used everywhere
>> and it needs to be as fast as possible. First it most be effective,
>> then efficient.
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Diogo Baeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > Guys, the last proposal gave me about 140ms ~ 150ms within 1000 method
>> > calls, but here's something that gave me about 80ms ~ 90ms:
>> >
>> >
>> > $.htmlEl = $('html').get(0);
>> > $.fn.inDOM = $.htmlEl.contains ?
>> > function() {
>> > var el = this[0];
>> > return $.htmlEl != el && $.htmlEl.contains(el);
>> > } :
>> > function() {
>> > var el = this[0];
>> > return !!($.htmlEl.compareDocumentPosition(el) & 16);
>> > };
>> >
>> > What do you think of it? A little bit more of coding, but considerably
>> > faster... despite someone would rarely make so much calls to this
>> > method, I
>> > think...
>> >
>> > Diogo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Diego Perini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Diogo,
>> >>
>> >> On 1 Dic, 21:56, "Diogo Baeder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > Thank you, guys... I tried the last method as implemented/adapted by
>> >> > Diego,
>> >> > and it works! :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Unfortunately, neither "contains" nor "compareDocumentPosition" are
>> >> > being
>> >> > recognized as methods for the "document" node in IE6 or 7, as you can
>> >> > test
>> >> > yourselves:
>> >> >
>> >> > alert(document.contains);
>> >> > alert(window.contains);
>> >> > alert(document.compareDocumentPosition);
>> >> > alert(window.compareDocumentPosition);
>> >> >
>> >> > Any ideas why these didn't work for me?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> The Microsoft "contains" method does not exists for the document
>> >> object (at least in the docs). Maybe because it is not an element
>> >> (nodeType == 1).
>> >>
>> >> Firefox and Opera implement the "compareDocumentPosition" method, also
>> >> they made it a method of the "document" itself.
>> >>
>> >> Opera implements both "compareDocumentPosition" and "contains", Safari
>> >> only has "contains" again not on the "document".
>> >>
>> >> The conclusion is that the implementations of "compareDocumentPosition
>> >> ()" and "contains()" disagree on this specific fact.
>> >>
>> >> At this point, given the messed up implementations, better being
>> >> independent from them both and go for the traversal.
>> >>
>> >> It is also much shorter and really cross-browser...
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Diego
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Diogo
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Diego Perini
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > ricardo,
>> >> >
>> >> > > On 1 Dic, 05:35, ricardobeat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > > I always miss the obvious stuff :)
>> >> >
>> >> > > > I ended up with this, it's a lot faster than Diogo's code but
>> >> > > > still
>> >> > > > requires you to traverse the document all the way up. John
>> >> > > > Resig's
>> >> > > > 'contains' function is at least twice faster in FF though, so it
>> >> > > > seems
>> >> > > > like the perfect solution.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > $.fn.inDOM = function(){
>> >> > > > var el = this[0];
>> >> > > > while (el.parentNode) el = el.parentNode;
>> >> > > > return el == this[0].ownerDocument;
>> >> >
>> >> > > > };
>> >> >
>> >> > > To make it less dependent:
>> >> >
>> >> > > $.fn.inDOM = function(){
>> >> > > var el = this[0];
>> >> > > while (el.parentNode) el = el.parentNode;
>> >> > > return el.nodeType == 9;
>> >> > > };
>> >> >
>> >> > > now you can also pass elements present in other DOM contexts.
>> >> >
>> >> > > Don't know if this modifies the intended usage, this will most
>> >> > > generally tell if the element is an orphan (not attached to any
>> >> > > document).
>> >> >
>> >> > > To account for both usages, it will be necessary to pass context
>> >> > > information (an extra parameter to specify the desired context).
>> >> >
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Diego
>> >> >
>> >> > > > - ricardo
>> >> >
>> >> > > > On 30 nov, 19:43, "Ariel Flesler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > Yeah, parentNode is not good enough.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 4:35 PM, ricardobeat
>> >> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > It seems the ownerDocument is set for the created element
>> >> > > > > > even
>> >> > > > > > if
>> >> > > it's
>> >> > > > > > not in the DOM, it's the document where jQuery was loaded in.
>> >> > > > > > A
>> >> > > simple
>> >> > > > > > check for parentNode or offsetParent would do:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > $.fn.inDOM = function(){
>> >> > > > > > return !!this.parentNode; //boolean
>> >> > > > > > });
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > parentNode returns faster for elements in the DOM, while
>> >> > > > > > offsetParent
>> >> > > > > > returns faster for elements not in the DOM (in FF3 at least).
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > Hope I'm not missing anything. It surely would need a better
>> >> > > > > > name :]
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > > cheers,
>> >> > > > > > - ricardo
>> >> > > > > > On 29 nov, 14:46, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >> 'body' should be replaced by 'html'.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> Maybe we can make it faster by consulting expandos like
>> >> > > > > >> ownerDocument ?
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> --
>> >> > > > > >> Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> On Nov 27, 12:52 am, diogobaeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > > > > >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > Hi there,
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > I'm new here (and in jQuery), but even though I'd like to
>> >> > > > > >> > propose
>> >> > > some
>> >> > > > > >> > simple but usefull method to the jQuery object (at
>> >> > > > > >> > core.js)
>> >> > > > > >> > to
>> >> > > tell
>> >> > > > > >> > the API user if an element exists in the document. I've
>> >> > > > > >> > tried
>> >> > > > > >> > to
>> >> > > build
>> >> > > > > >> > one as follows:
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > [CODE]
>> >> > > > > >> > (function($) {
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > $.fn.inDOM = function() {
>> >> > > > > >> > return !!this.parents('body').length;
>> >> > > > > >> > };
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > })(jQuery);
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > jQuery(document).ready(function(){
>> >> > > > > >> > var jEl = $('.someExistingClass');
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > // Should be in DOM
>> >> > > > > >> > console.debug(jEl.inDOM());
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > // Removing the element
>> >> > > > > >> > jEl.remove();
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > // Should NOT be in DOM
>> >> > > > > >> > console.debug(jEl.inDOM());});
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > [/CODE]
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > So, if the client sets a variable as a jQuery object, and
>> >> > > > > >> > at
>> >> > > > > >> > some
>> >> > > > > >> > point of the code the DOM element within it can be
>> >> > > > > >> > removed,
>> >> > > > > >> > he/she
>> >> > > can
>> >> > > > > >> > test if it really was. OK, I know it sounds unsignificant,
>> >> > > > > >> > but I
>> >> > > think
>> >> > > > > >> > it would still be usefull.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > Thanks!
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > >> > Diogo Baeder
>> >> >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > Ariel Fleslerhttp://flesler.blogspot.com
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Diogo Baederhttp://www.diogobaeder.com.br
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Diogo Baeder
>> > http://www.diogobaeder.com.br
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ariel Flesler
>> http://flesler.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Diogo Baeder
> http://www.diogobaeder.com.br
>
> >
>
--
Ariel Flesler
http://flesler.blogspot.com
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"jQuery Development" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
