Alright... agreed! :-) Well, the code's fast nonetheless, so may we go on
with "parentNode" and "nodeType == 9" implementation, then?
Diogo
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ariel Flesler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
> >
>
--
Diogo Baeder
http://www.diogobaeder.com.br
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
